Ezekiel 23:20 New International Version (NIV) "There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses."

I merely stated my opinion on what I view as an easy moral dilemma. No need to call me names. You seem to base your argument on freedom. That's exactly what I do too: The freedom of males to make their own choices regarding cosmetic surgery on their genitals. It seems to me you value the freedom of the parents higher. I can see where you're coming from, but to me the individual concerned always weighs heavier in such moral arguments.

Let it be known that I don't want a ban on circumcition per se. If someone wants to make that decision for themselves when he comes of age, for religious reasons or otherwise, I have no problem with it. My problem is when someone else (in this case parents) removes irreversibly the opportunity to choose yourself.
>> ^VoodooV:

Fortunately for the rest of the world, you don't get to judge, oh arbiter of what is good and bad. This reinforces why I'm an independent. Both left and right have their lunatic fringe. and arbitrating circumcision is definitely lunatic.
and xxovercast, I never said YOU were pro-ban. nice try though. This perfectly demonstrates the hypocrisy of both left and right. pro-choice for certain things....not so much other things. You don't get to cherry pick what choices you approve of and which ones you don't. It's all ok or none of it is.
As I have repeatedly stated, Unless you can show that the majority of those who have had circumcision without consent are under some sort of significant duress or their lives are significantly been infringed upon. You've got nothing.

>> ^Ornthoron:

Even without considering the pros or cons of having a foreskin, I am simply unable to understand how anyone can condone removing a piece of an infant boy's body before he can consent.
quality


Exactly. I don't really give a shit about sensitivity or "dryness". Clearly males have been perfectly happy to be circumcised for generations untold. What I car about it the genital mutilation of infants.

Boom! http://www.facebook.com/pages/Punchin-mots-in-the-tits/137775319566134
>> ^Januari:

Right... because there arn't multiple videos of women being punched in the genitals right here on the sift for comedic value.
"Only when it happens to a man is it funny"... what a joke.

THIS.

>> ^ChaosEngine:

You know what? Despite how much I think that those women are idiots, I can actually live with their stupid tirade. What was done to that poor guy was undoubtedly wrong, and that woman should go to jail. But I really don't care enough about the opinions of those women for their jokes on the subject to bother me. The act itself bothers me far more. So yeah, they're wrong and stupid, but their wrongness and stupidity pales into insignificance compared to the real and seriously fucked up issues facing women globally. Do you really think that, shrill shrieking harpies that they are, those women would actually mutilate a man like that? Well, maybe Sharon Osbourne.
Genital mutilation and gang rape are still not unusual in the third world. So frankly, these bitches can have their pathetic little comedy segment. If you want to fix a house, do you worry about the picture that's hanging crooked or the cracks in the foundation? That picture needs straightening al right, but it's just not a priority.
On a sidenote, there's an interesting dynamic in that clip. Sharon Osbourne hijacks the debate and decides it's hilarious. The rest of them look momentarily shocked, but decide to go along with it since the audience thinks it's "outrageous". Sara Gilbert makes a vain attempt to inject some sense, but she's steam-rolled by Sharon. I'd say it would have been a very different piece without her there.

You know what? Despite how much I think that those women are idiots, I can actually live with their stupid tirade. What was done to that poor guy was undoubtedly wrong, and that woman should go to jail. But I really don't care enough about the opinions of those women for their jokes on the subject to bother me. The act itself bothers me far more. So yeah, they're wrong and stupid, but their wrongness and stupidity pales into insignificance compared to the real and seriously fucked up issues facing women globally. Do you really think that, shrill shrieking harpies that they are, those women would actually mutilate a man like that? Well, maybe Sharon Osbourne.

Genital mutilation and gang rape are still not unusual in the third world. So frankly, these bitches can have their pathetic little comedy segment. If you want to fix a house, do you worry about the picture that's hanging crooked or the cracks in the foundation? That picture needs straightening al right, but it's just not a priority.

On a sidenote, there's an interesting dynamic in that clip. Sharon Osbourne hijacks the debate and decides it's hilarious. The rest of them look momentarily shocked, but decide to go along with it since the audience thinks it's "outrageous". Sara Gilbert makes a vain attempt to inject some sense, but she's steam-rolled by Sharon. I'd say it would have been a very different piece without her there.

This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This.

>> ^Januari:

Right... because there arn't multiple videos of women being punched in the genitals right here on the sift for comedic value.
"Only when it happens to a man is it funny"... what a joke.

Now that's a great way to point out an arguement, and I agree mostly with the points

In reply to this comment by StimulusMax:
After reading your more recent post, I do have to agree with you to some extent. I do believe that if you are going to belong to or support a group, you have a responsibility to address and/or distance yourself from the extremists who identify with that group. I guess what I'm trying to say is that I don't think it's fair to tell people that they have to find a new label to distinguish themselves from the more extreme elements of their group. Feminists should not have to find a new name themselves because misandrists sometimes call themselves feminists.

Another analogy. Let's say I'm born a Jew. My entire family is Jewish, and the only ethno-cultural traditions I practice are Jewish. I agree that's it's my responsibility to decry the oppressive actions of the Jewish state, but do I have to give up my Judaism because I think Israel is extreme? That seems counter-intuitive to me, as part of the strength of my position would be to say, as a Jew, this state does not represent me.

Let's flip this on it's head. There are militant atheists. Should we not call ourselves atheists to distance ourselves from their extremism?

Or should we surrender our citizenship because we don't agree with the actions of our country? Talk about a slippery slope. My point with the Republican comment is that it is illogical to ask moderates to surrender their identity because of the existence of a few associated extremists. Not only is it unfair, but it robs the moderates of the position of power from which they are best equipped to deal with the extremists.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/StimulusMax" title="member since May 29th, 2010" class="profilelink">StimulusMax
You note that to win you have to associate with undesirables; a slippery slope if ever I heard of one. Isn’t the Tea Party part of those “undesirable” elements the Republican Party must associate with or lose? We actually see this happening in elections around America. Without their support, both the GOP and it's candidates are bombing...Either the GOP is the friend of the Tea Party right now, or their party becomes a fractured base 3rd party; or as you say, they will belong to a Party that has no chance of succeeding...
So, why? For the same reason Christians need to hold back their rouge elements.


And how do you propose to create that equality if we're not allowed to recognize groups as oppressed and treat them as such?

I am not for one instant arguing that we should take away anybody's rights. What I'm suggesting is that there needs to be ways to balance inequality of privileges. To reiterate, I in no way endorse the sort of "revenge" that the women on this show were laughing about, but do take issue with comments, like Blankfist's above, that suggest that oppression isn't our responsibility. We benefit from it, we should own it. We should be willing to make the necessary concessions to offset the inequality resulting from that oppression.

There's an idea for you: maybe we wouldn't have to discuss Nietzschean ideas of revenge if those in positions of privilege were more proactive.

Here's an analogy: Five people are doing the same job. Four of them make barely enough to scrape by, and the fifth arbitrarily makes three times as much. Is it "revenge" for the four to want the fifth to divy up the extra so they all make the same amount? What if all they're asking is that the fifth reinvest a bit so that they can all make more?

I'm sure some people will just say "too bad, life's unfair, it's not my fault I am where I am". And I agree, it's not your fault. But it might mean you have a bit of extra responsibility.

What, you don't like that you have a bit of extra responsibility? Well too bad, life's unfair.

>> ^draak13:

While I do strongly agree that there are many schools of though on feminism, and that we shouldn't let the more ridiculous people paint the entire concept as invalid as the commentator was advertising, it is alarming how this relatively small school of feminist radicals is not so small. As was pointed out, it is not just just 3 or 4 women, it was the entire audience on set. Furthermore, it was a significant portion of the home viewers, as evidenced by how much outrage this clip has not caused. Female genital mutilation does happen in third world countries as a form of oppression. The concept angers most people in a developed society. The opposite should be just as true.
You, and several others, have commented that it is the way of things that the group with higher rights will experience diminished rights as the lower groups crawl up to equality. This is an incredibly false notion, which borderlines the notion of 'revenge.' An injustice cannot be solved by creating another injustice; the problem is merely being moved around, rather than solved. The solution is to create proper equality.
>> ^StimulusMax:
You don't buy into that line of reasoning because it's inaccurate. The oppression is ongoing, though it has in many ways become less blatant and more systematic. The reason that you might "pay" for it, is because by virtue of being born into the world a white male (I assume), you benefit from a substantial amount of privilege compared to minority groups. The privilege you (and I, and all of us on the sift in different ways) enjoy is not due to any particular virtue or hard-work of our own, but because we were luck enough to be born into a certain group. When looked at that way, one sees that the whole point of minority rights groups IS equality, which is why they fight to bring their societal status UP to where you already benefit from being. And, yes, sometimes it means disadvantaging those who are at the top, in the name of an equal playing field.
To be clear, I think the women on the show are being cruel and insulting, but the idea that the actions of a few women, whether they call themselves feminists or not, are enough to damn all of feminism is RIDICULOUS. Do you think none of the civil rights movement have any validity because you disagree with the methods of Malcolm X?

After reading your more recent post, I do have to agree with you to some extent. I do believe that if you are going to belong to or support a group, you have a responsibility to address and/or distance yourself from the extremists who identify with that group. I guess what I'm trying to say is that I don't think it's fair to tell people that they have to find a new label to distinguish themselves from the more extreme elements of their group. Feminists should not have to find a new name themselves because misandrists sometimes call themselves feminists.

Another analogy. Let's say I'm born a Jew. My entire family is Jewish, and the only ethno-cultural traditions I practice are Jewish. I agree that's it's my responsibility to decry the oppressive actions of the Jewish state, but do I have to give up my Judaism because I think Israel is extreme? That seems counter-intuitive to me, as part of the strength of my position would be to say, as a Jew, this state does not represent me.

Let's flip this on it's head. There are militant atheists. Should we not call ourselves atheists to distance ourselves from their extremism?

Or should we surrender our citizenship because we don't agree with the actions of our country? Talk about a slippery slope. My point with the Republican comment is that it is illogical to ask moderates to surrender their identity because of the existence of a few associated extremists. Not only is it unfair, but it robs the moderates of the position of power from which they are best equipped to deal with the extremists.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

@StimulusMax
You note that to win you have to associate with undesirables; a slippery slope if ever I heard of one. Isn’t the Tea Party part of those “undesirable” elements the Republican Party must associate with or lose? We actually see this happening in elections around America. Without their support, both the GOP and it's candidates are bombing...Either the GOP is the friend of the Tea Party right now, or their party becomes a fractured base 3rd party; or as you say, they will belong to a Party that has no chance of succeeding...
So, why? For the same reason Christians need to hold back their rouge elements.


And how do you propose to create that equality if we're not allowed to recognize groups as oppressed and treat them as such?

I am not for one instant arguing that we should take away anybody's rights. What I'm suggesting is that there needs to be ways to balance inequality of privileges. To reiterate, I in no way endorse the sort of "revenge" that the women on this show were laughing about, but do take issue with comments, like Blankfist's above, that suggest that oppression isn't our responsibility. We benefit from it, we should own it. We should be willing to make the necessary concessions to offset the inequality resulting from that oppression.

There's an idea for you: maybe we wouldn't have to discuss Nietzschean ideas of revenge if those in positions of privilege were more proactive.

Here's an analogy: Five people are doing the same job. Four of them make barely enough to scrape by, and the fifth arbitrarily makes three times as much. Is it "revenge" for the four to want the fifth to divy up the extra so they all make the same amount? What if all they're asking is that the fifth reinvest a bit so that they can all make more?

I'm sure some people will just say "too bad, life's unfair, it's not my fault I am where I am". And I agree, it's not your fault. But it might mean you have a bit of extra responsibility.

What, you don't like that you have a bit of extra responsibility? Well too bad, life's unfair.

>> ^draak13:

While I do strongly agree that there are many schools of though on feminism, and that we shouldn't let the more ridiculous people paint the entire concept as invalid as the commentator was advertising, it is alarming how this relatively small school of feminist radicals is not so small. As was pointed out, it is not just just 3 or 4 women, it was the entire audience on set. Furthermore, it was a significant portion of the home viewers, as evidenced by how much outrage this clip has not caused. Female genital mutilation does happen in third world countries as a form of oppression. The concept angers most people in a developed society. The opposite should be just as true.
You, and several others, have commented that it is the way of things that the group with higher rights will experience diminished rights as the lower groups crawl up to equality. This is an incredibly false notion, which borderlines the notion of 'revenge.' An injustice cannot be solved by creating another injustice; the problem is merely being moved around, rather than solved. The solution is to create proper equality.
>> ^StimulusMax:
You don't buy into that line of reasoning because it's inaccurate. The oppression is ongoing, though it has in many ways become less blatant and more systematic. The reason that you might "pay" for it, is because by virtue of being born into the world a white male (I assume), you benefit from a substantial amount of privilege compared to minority groups. The privilege you (and I, and all of us on the sift in different ways) enjoy is not due to any particular virtue or hard-work of our own, but because we were luck enough to be born into a certain group. When looked at that way, one sees that the whole point of minority rights groups IS equality, which is why they fight to bring their societal status UP to where you already benefit from being. And, yes, sometimes it means disadvantaging those who are at the top, in the name of an equal playing field.
To be clear, I think the women on the show are being cruel and insulting, but the idea that the actions of a few women, whether they call themselves feminists or not, are enough to damn all of feminism is RIDICULOUS. Do you think none of the civil rights movement have any validity because you disagree with the methods of Malcolm X?

While I do strongly agree that there are many schools of though on feminism, and that we shouldn't let the more ridiculous people paint the entire concept as invalid as the commentator was advertising, it is alarming how this relatively small school of feminist radicals is not so small. As was pointed out, it is not just just 3 or 4 women, it was the entire audience on set. Furthermore, it was a significant portion of the home viewers, as evidenced by how much outrage this clip has *not* caused. Female genital mutilation does happen in third world countries as a form of oppression. The concept angers most people in a developed society. The opposite should be just as true.

You, and several others, have commented that it is the way of things that the group with higher rights will experience diminished rights as the lower groups crawl up to equality. This is an incredibly false notion, which borderlines the notion of 'revenge.' An injustice cannot be solved by creating another injustice; the problem is merely being moved around, rather than solved. The solution is to create proper equality.

>> ^StimulusMax:

You don't buy into that line of reasoning because it's inaccurate. The oppression is ongoing, though it has in many ways become less blatant and more systematic. The reason that you might "pay" for it, is because by virtue of being born into the world a white male (I assume), you benefit from a substantial amount of privilege compared to minority groups. The privilege you (and I, and all of us on the sift in different ways) enjoy is not due to any particular virtue or hard-work of our own, but because we were luck enough to be born into a certain group. When looked at that way, one sees that the whole point of minority rights groups IS equality, which is why they fight to bring their societal status UP to where you already benefit from being. And, yes, sometimes it means disadvantaging those who are at the top, in the name of an equal playing field.
To be clear, I think the women on the show are being cruel and insulting, but the idea that the actions of a few women, whether they call themselves feminists or not, are enough to damn all of feminism is RIDICULOUS. Do you think none of the civil rights movement have any validity because you disagree with the methods of Malcolm X?

Right... because there arn't multiple videos of women being punched in the genitals right here on the sift for comedic value.

"Only when it happens to a man is it funny"... what a joke.

EIA channel? pretty sure he can still have children, but I need genital confirmation resources.

>> ^Sagemind:

So imagine if the patient neglected to remove a tongue piercing or worse yet - Nipple or genital piercings...
Nuf said!

This is exactly why they always ask you a lot of questions before they put you in one of these machines, for instance about whether you have a pacemaker, or whether you work with metal regularly. Just a tiny grain of metal dust can really wreak havoc with your body if it's logded in some critical place such as, say, your eye.

So imagine if the patient neglected to remove a tongue piercing or worse yet - Nipple or genital piercings...

Nuf said!

@bareboards2

Don't even get me started.

If you and SD wanna argue that science is just a tool that's fine.
It only shows your ignorance.

But it's funny cause you still rely on the group consensus of scientists to support your claims about religion. "It's biological human nature."

If you studied biology and neuroscience, you'd have an actual understanding of the shit you're always spoutin' about.

Instead you go off on some zen master "howlin' winds & walls" bullshit without understanding why the wind is so intense in the first place.
~~~

For example, circumcision is wrong. In the same way murder is.

Your rational mind will immediately identify that it's wrong to mutilate babies.

But you'll defend it because it comes packaged with religion.

Your hippie "multiculturalist" mind will identify the act of baby mutilation as part of "biological human nature". [Church sanctioned Genital Mutilation is just part of the inevitable all-natural wind, right? -_-]

"It's really great for all those parents who come out of the 'anti-genital mutilation closet' because after enough time & laws have passed, I'm sure there will be no more infant genital mutilation." [This is your wall. Your weak, takes centuries to build wall.]
~~~
If you really supported stuff like It Gets Better you'd realize that apologist [like you and SD] who place religion on a pedestal..

..contributes to the problems of those closeted gay and lesbian kids face you apparently want someone to help.

Yet you still continue to defend religion because of some "humans err, it's natural" bullshit.

It's a self defeating "solution" whether you're talking about governments or religions.
~~~

Which is brings us to the question of why you continue to use that reason/logic, Gale.

You're either disingenuous or stupid as fuck.

I'm going with the latter. Here is why:

Police brutality and ritualized genital mutilations are constructs of human cultural.

There is no need for either of them.

You Gale, are attempting to argue that both are inherent evils that have to be dealt with because there is no other way around them.

I've been shouting and flinging evidence at you for that last month or two to prove otherwise.

You're too old and set in your ways to think otherwise.

[Don't worry it happens to all of us to some extent.]

But for you to sit here and continue to say that -

"Yes certain things are awful but we need to put up with them cause there's no other way"

[WHEN THERE ARE CLEARLY MUCH BETTER WAYS.]

Is again, a worldview born from stupidity [ignorance about why things are that way] or insincerity
~~~
Kumquat? Yeah, it's okay. You were never listening in the first place.