Kind of reminds me of the flayed man standard of the Boltons in Game of Thrones. It certainly would be a pretty intimidating symbol to have to go to war against.
__________________
"If stupidity got us into this mess, then why can't it get us out?"
The Following User Says Thank You to JohnnyB For This Useful Post:
I get why people don't want to do the procedure on their own children. I don't get why they're so furious about other people doing it to their kids. How and why did this become a social issue rather than a private matter?
It's quite bizarre. The anti-circumcision crowd typically relies upon the following false arguments:
1. It's equivalent to female genital mutilation: No, it's not. Cutting off a clitoris is not the same as removing foreskin.
2. It affects the pleasure a man feels: No, it's scientifically proven not to.
3. It has no health benefits: No, it prevents infections and STD transmission. We live in a society with easy access to anti-biotics little HIV exposure. Our policy makers do not, therefore, feel from a cost-benefit analysis standpoint everyone should have the procedure done.
4. It causes excess trauma to children: No, I've yet to meet anyone who remembers it. Every child I've seen have it done forgot about it within hours.
5. The people who have it done are motivated by some kind of malice towards children: No, it's typically done for reasons of custom or health.
The only argument that holds any ground is that it's a permanent choice that baby's cannot make themselves. Once again, it's a parents legal right and obligation to make choices for their children. Those rights and obligations typically continue until age of majority.
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to blankall For This Useful Post:
I find it interesting that Elaine was in favour of circumcision. I feel that her character would have definitely been against it from a moral standpoint.
__________________
But living an honest life - for that you need the truth. That's the other thing I learned that day, that the truth, however shocking or uncomfortable, leads to liberation and dignity. -Ricky Gervais
It's quite bizarre. The anti-circumcision crowd typically relies upon the following false arguments:
1. It's equivalent to female genital mutilation: No, it's not. Cutting off a clitoris is not the same as removing foreskin.
2. It affects the pleasure a man feels: No, it's scientifically proven not to.
3. It has no health benefits: No, it prevents infections and STD transmission. We live in a society with easy access to anti-biotics little HIV exposure. Our policy makers do not, therefore, feel from a cost-benefit analysis standpoint everyone should have the procedure done.
4. It causes excess trauma to children: No, I've yet to meet anyone who remembers it. Every child I've seen have it done forgot about it within hours.
5. The people who have it done are motivated by some kind of malice towards children: No, it's typically done for reasons of custom or health.
The only argument that holds any ground is that it's a permanent choice that baby's cannot make themselves. Once again, it's a parents legal right and obligation to make choices for their children. Those rights and obligations typically continue until age of majority.
What about the argument against causing babies needless pain? It seems to me that pain in that moment is a bad thing, regardless of whether or not it is remembered. It also seems that it's needless.
If someone said to me "Hey, why don't you stab our baby in the arm with this fork? It's our cultural tradition, and he won't remember it later anyways." I would still choose not to stab that baby with the fork, and I would think that was a pretty stupid tradition.
__________________
"If stupidity got us into this mess, then why can't it get us out?"
If someone said to me "Hey, why don't you stab our baby in the arm with this fork? It's our cultural tradition, and he won't remember it later anyways." I would still choose not to stab that baby with the fork, and I would think that was a pretty stupid tradition.
Some cultures piece the ears of newborns. Not my thing, but I don't consider it my business if someone else does it. It's a brief pain. Babies get all kinds of needles, freak out when you try to clip their nails, etc. I honestly don't understand what level of sensitivity to the pain of others you have to be calibrated to in order for this register, consider all the other stuff to worry about in the world.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
What about the argument against causing babies needless pain? It seems to me that pain in that moment is a bad thing, regardless of whether or not it is remembered. It also seems that it's needless.
If someone said to me "Hey, why don't you stab our baby in the arm with this fork? It's our cultural tradition, and he won't remember it later anyways." I would still choose not to stab that baby with the fork, and I would think that was a pretty stupid tradition.
It's an exaggeration of the pain I was referring to.
Some cultures piece the ears of newborns. Not my thing, but I don't consider it my business if someone else does it. It's a brief pain. Babies get all kinds of needles, freak out when you try to clip their nails, etc. I honestly don't understand what level of sensitivity to the pain of others you have to be calibrated to in order for this register, consider all the other stuff to worry about in the world.
I don't really care much, I just think it's a weird thing to do.
__________________
"If stupidity got us into this mess, then why can't it get us out?"
What about the argument against causing babies needless pain? It seems to me that pain in that moment is a bad thing, regardless of whether or not it is remembered. It also seems that it's needless.
If someone said to me "Hey, why don't you stab our baby in the arm with this fork? It's our cultural tradition, and he won't remember it later anyways." I would still choose not to stab that baby with the fork, and I would think that was a pretty stupid tradition.
What are the benefits of stabbing a kid in the arm with a fork? Any? None? Would it make them less likely to get an sti/infection or less like to transfer an sti/infection? If it would, I'd do it for sure. I'd be lining up to stab kids with forks.
You can be for or against it, but comparing it to stabbing a baby with a fork is absolutely ridiculous.
It seems no less ridiculous than cutting off the tip of a baby's weiner. Really, considering both are needless, I would be more accepting of the fork than cutting off a piece of the body. If you step back and strip both of any culturally specific connotations, the fork is just as weird but a little less disturbing.
Anyways, I'm not trying to force my views on anyone. I'm just saying that from my point of view it's a pretty weird thing to do anything needless that causes pain to a baby, whether or not it's forgotten.
__________________
"If stupidity got us into this mess, then why can't it get us out?"
It's quite bizarre. The anti-circumcision crowd typically relies upon the following false arguments:
1. It's equivalent to female genital mutilation: No, it's not. Cutting off a clitoris is not the same as removing foreskin.
2. It affects the pleasure a man feels: No, it's scientifically proven not to.
3. It has no health benefits: No, it prevents infections and STD transmission. We live in a society with easy access to anti-biotics little HIV exposure. Our policy makers do not, therefore, feel from a cost-benefit analysis standpoint everyone should have the procedure done.
4. It causes excess trauma to children: No, I've yet to meet anyone who remembers it. Every child I've seen have it done forgot about it within hours.
5. The people who have it done are motivated by some kind of malice towards children: No, it's typically done for reasons of custom or health.
The only argument that holds any ground is that it's a permanent choice that baby's cannot make themselves. Once again, it's a parents legal right and obligation to make choices for their children. Those rights and obligations typically continue until age of majority.
Welp.
1) nerve endings are nerve endings, and there are alot in both, so there are some parallels. Should we compare a count? No, but to also imply that foreskin is a numb, sensationless and adds nothing to stimulation is equally misguided.
2) I think you'd disagree in a heck of a hurry if you were "intact". Its a mighty sensitive area, and the drying and alteration of sensitivity that this drying does to the glans is most definitely decreasing sensitivity. You may have a different gauge for this "pleasure", but its most definitely decreased from anyone who is not circumcised.
3) Honestly, the only risk to transmission is the potential for skin breakage, which could happen in cases where individuals suffer a frenulum tear, phimosis due to anatomy or rough intercourse. Hygiene can be an issue for anyone, as a medical professional, I promise you that knows no bounds. Its easy enough to reduce the risks with protection, partner selection. Definitely not enough of a difference to ever mandate circumcision over not.
4) Ability to recall, and forgetting are two vastly different things. There is plenty in your life you can't recall visually or in detail, that doesn't mean it didn't happen, or doesn't have the potential to affect you or be recalled.
5) Post health concern or medical need? Sure, we have tons of procedures to remove things, for active concerns or genetic predisposition. But those are for KNOWN risks, not theoretical risks. Customs, well you're just back into the barbarism discussion with that one again. Should we bring up some things that are "customs" that are simply outrageous? I'm sure there are a few that could make you uncomfortable. Whats that saying again, "100's of years of tradition, unimpeded by progress". Get with the times, its grossly unnecessary for at least 80% of your posted argument argument.
I find it interesting that Elaine was in favour of circumcision. I feel that her character would have definitely been against it from a moral standpoint.
I wonder how the driving creative forces of the show felt about circumcision, and how the characters framed the issue in the dialogue.
Sometimes Elaine reinforced Jerry’s view, sometimes she challenged it.
Last edited by DeluxeMoustache; 08-13-2018 at 11:12 PM.
