I am asking, and this is my main point, which you need to address, can parents make any decisions related to cosmetics? Or is it limited to what you and I use as our subjective standards? For example, can a parent have the earlobe removed because it will make the baby more beautiful/handsome to the parent? It is, after all, reasonable to point out that both are harmless cosmetic adjustments. (And why note that a parent has a right to have one cosmetic surgery but be a hypocrite and say that the same parent does not have the right to have another.)

Can a parent have a harmless lip-reduction done on a child? Or how about removing the nipples on boys? I ask because some parents do have these surgeries done... and it seems you are fine with them...because they do not leave trauma.

Also, we can speculate a bit on the extent of damage, but damage to the body does rewire the brain. You blind a man, you just don't take his sight, his brain rewires to the physical trauma...

Some studies suggest that ripping an infant's dick skin off creates aggressive tendencies later in life. Do I "have an idea of" how far that damage or violence caused might be. No. But we all DO know that physical trauma does propagate violence.

And removing some of the earlobe is not like removing all of the foreskin. All the earlobe and all the foreskin. Just because you leave actual dick skin, that doesn't equate to the foreskin...

>> ^SDGundamX:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/Lawdeedaw" title="member since May 3rd, 2010" class="profilelink">Lawdeedaw
Read the link I posted if you'd like to know how to get rid of your scar. It explains the procedure pretty clearly (and is apparently painless).
I understand that you don't believe ear piercing and male circumcision are equivalent. That doesn't mean they aren't equivalent, though. You just don't agree with me, just as I don't agree with you that circumcision is akin to chopping off earlobes. I'd say shaving the earlobes a little bit would be a better comparison and I suppose it is just a quirk of fate that such a cosmetic change is not considered aesthetically pleasing by any particular cultural group. So, on that point I think we're pretty much at a draw.
As to your second point, it doesn't matter that "you have no idea what happens" to the brain during a circumcision. The medical consensus is that it isn't harmful physiologically or psychologically to children. If there's no evidence, how can you legislate against it? You have no idea if eating apples causes cancer, do you? There's no medical evidence for it. Do you see my point here? Saying "you have no idea what happens" isn't a defensible argument in any way.
My primary concern is the medical consequences of the procedure. If there are none (and there don't appear to be so far--who knows what they'll find in the future) and if the process is reversible (which, if you read the link I posted apparently it is) then I don't see the need to legislate against it other than because of someone's Don Quixotic profound interest in interfering with how other people live their lives. There are far better and more serious issues to campaign for than this.

Are you circumcised?
>> ^SDGundamX:

WALLOFTEXT

I would say the parents are materialistic for doing something like piecing their child's ears, but hey, we are speaking about Americans...

However, I would not say piecing your baby's ear is equivalent to circumcision. An adequate comparison would be removing the earlobe from a baby's ear completely. After all, who needs the extra skin? And we both know Gundam, that is definitely illegal.

Secondly, you have no idea what nerves do to the brain when functioning to trauma--even when unremembered. If a baby is beaten until they are two-ish, remember nothing of the beatings and are otherwise healthy, don't you still think his/her brain will actually form based on its experiences? I do. You read to a child, his brain actually grows differently than when you would not. You chop off his dick's skin...

Lastly, you can pull out earrings. How the fuck is my scar ring supposed to be fixed? Or for that matter, what about those with really botched, fucked up shit?

>> ^SDGundamX:

Just to echo what I wrote on the Penn and Teller Sift regarding circumcision:
I feel it's a cosmetic choice. It's not a crime to pierce your kid's ears when they are born--and that's done without anesthetic. There are people who clearly have medical benefits from having it done (see nanrod's comment at the Penn and Teller video) and if it's done at a hospital anesthetic will often be used so that it's not nearly as traumatic as the pundits are making it out to be. Even if anesthetic ISN'T used, no child ever remembers the experience. If you belong to a culture that supports male circumcision and want your kid to fit into that group then by all means, have it done. It's not going to do any permanent damage to him. And if he really, really wishes you hadn't done it, it can be undone.
I agree with DerHasisttot, legislating this is just stupid. Even if it passes, it won't be seen as anything except an anti-Semitic attack and--unless some new compelling medical research appears that shows it is harmful to have the procedure done--will likely be overturned. Educate people about the truth--that for most people it's medically unnecessary and let them decide for themselves how they want to raise their kids.

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/DerHasisttot" title="member since May 11th, 2010" class="profilelink">DerHasisttot
Pfff I'd say: be complicit in baby torture for the time being rather than take steps to prevent it


What about all the torture babies put the rest of the world through? I'd say they've got it coming!

>> ^MaxWilder:

I disagree @<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/DerHasisttot" title="member since May 11th, 2010" class="profilelink">DerHasisttot, the push for legislation can be a fantastic way of grabbing people's attention, thereby legislating and educating simultaneously. Despite the fact that every professional medical organization in the world (such as the AMA) finds no medical justification for circumcision, it is still routinely performed without question. A legal rumpus may be just what this issue needs to enter the public consciousness.
But you may be right in that this will take several attempts to pass before enough people realize what barbaric bullshit they are using as justification for mutilating their children. Perhaps it will morph into a bill where there are special exemptions for religious purpose. I'd be fine with that. The point is to get people to stop thinking of it as normal and medically justified. In fact just the opposite, the procedure carries the risk of death (rare as it may be). All of the supposed risks that are used to justify circumcision can be remedied by basic hygiene, and it's long past time that people were aware of that.


I fully agree. In my mind I compare it with the drive to legalise Marihuana, which is somewhat comparable, in the way that both issues are depending on widespread support.

I grant you the attention-grabbing possibilities, but to be honest, the activist in the video was not the right man for the job.

>> ^marbles:

>> ^DerHasisttot:
Yeah but you cannot win this ban by legislating, because Jewish people. I'm strongly against circumcision, but this cannot be won in the american political system.
of course I'd like to be proven wrong.

Is there an exemption on statutory rape to religions that condone it?


Nope. BUT tell me one piece of greater civil legislation in the history of the USA that did not have a large popular movement behind it. I misspoke on the matter that one should educate instead of legislate. I was wrong.
One should first educate, then legislate. Attempts to ban it now will be killed in flight, because only a small group is behind it. Plus they will inevitably be called antisemites because male circumcition is undeniably linked to an influential social group. When education reaches a large threshold in society, legislation can go through. Then it will be peachy.

>> ^DerHasisttot:

Yeah but you cannot win this ban by legislating, because Jewish people. I'm strongly against circumcision, but this cannot be won in the american political system.
of course I'd like to be proven wrong.


Is there an exemption on statutory rape to religions that condone it?

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/DerHasisttot" title="member since May 11th, 2010" class="profilelink">DerHasisttot
Pfff I'd say: be complicit in baby torture for the time being rather than take steps to prevent it


Yeah but you cannot win this ban by legislating, because Jewish people. I'm strongly against circumcision, but this cannot be won in the american political system.

of course I'd like to be proven wrong.

I'm guessing you are russian

Besides, I think he let go of the puck before his stick went above the crossbar. That's why the puck went in...
>> ^visionep:

A high stick is called when your stick touches the puck above the crossbar of the net. It is not a penalty, but it stops play and if you do it in the other teams zone it results in a face off outside of the zone.
They shouldn't have called this a goal because his stick was above the crossbar holding the puck before the goal crossed the goal line.
It's a slick move, but either their high stick rules are different or they just let it go.

>> ^visionep:
A high stick is called when your stick touches the puck above the crossbar of the net. It is not a penalty, but it stops play and if you do it in the other teams zone it results in a face off outside of the zone.
They shouldn't have called this a goal because his stick was above the crossbar holding the puck before the goal crossed the goal line.
It's a slick move, but either their high stick rules are different or they just let it go.


He never touched the puck when it was above the crossbar.

A high stick is called when your stick touches the puck above the crossbar of the net. It is not a penalty, but it stops play and if you do it in the other teams zone it results in a face off outside of the zone.

They shouldn't have called this a goal because his stick was above the crossbar holding the puck before the goal crossed the goal line.

It's a slick move, but either their high stick rules are different or they just let it go.

Thanks for the quality!

In reply to this comment by ponceleon:
*quality

I wouldn't be able to resist giving the seal a big hug which would probably cause it to freak out and bite my face off.

Adaptation is one of my favorite movies. Strike that... IS my favorite movie.
He is so good in that I overlook EVERY BAD MOVIE HE HAS DONE.
>> ^sanderbos:

I don't think this was the intent of the video but it actually made me realize what a great career this guy has had, if you leave out all the crap that is. I mean, Rumble Fish, Peggy Sue Got Married, Raising Arizona, Moonstruck, Wild at Heart, Honeymoon in Vegas, Leaving Las Vegas, Face/Off, Lord of War, that would be a very respectable list for any actor.


>> ^poolcleaner:

>> ^berticus:
Don't forget Adaptation!
>> ^dannym3141:
I think he's a fan-fucking-tastic actor when he picks the right films. Leaving Las Vegas really couldn't have been anyone else. And in Kick-Ass - quirky, interesting, engaging? And i thought he suited The Rock perfectly.
Sometimes amazing, sometimes terrible.


Raising Arizona and Adaptation are tops in my book! Coen Bros. and Spike Jonze/Charlie Kaufman for the fucking win!


p.s. DOUBLE QUOTING!!!!@!

I don't think this was the intent of the video but it actually made me realize what a great career this guy has had, if you leave out all the crap that is. I mean, Rumble Fish, Peggy Sue Got Married, Raising Arizona, Moonstruck, Wild at Heart, Honeymoon in Vegas, Leaving Las Vegas, Face/Off, Lord of War, that would be a very respectable list for any actor.