There's the rub...in many places, information IS hard to come by. If your Dr still believes it's a good thing for your child's health, and tells you so, you are likely to believe him/her. I agree, they SHOULD know by now, but that's not the same as saying they do know. If you think the information you have is correct, you would have no reason to think you need a 'refresher course' about it...sadly.
It seems we agree that this is something people should at least be educated about and should actually consider thoroughly before doing it to their children....or better yet wait until they can educate the child and let them decide...unless there's a medical need for it (or a good likelihood of one in the near future) like the ones described above.

Male circumcision is a far cry from 'female circumcision', which is really clitorectomy (I've never heard of a legitimate reason for that)....maybe if they cut the whole tip off they would compare, but that's not how it's done.

I misspoke, they're the crocodile people.....
http://video.nationalgeographic.com/video/newguinea-crocscars-pp

you are right, my modification of your hypothetical did muddy it a bit off topic, but was meant to show that there may be an unknown reason for the 'mutilation' that makes it beneficial rather than barbaric. That seems to NOT be the case for most circumcision...at least not in today's society....but perhaps there are reasons I don't know for it.

That is good to hear! Actually I lived in Ventura for 19 years, worked in Oxnard. Gangbanging denies the average American (whatever their race) the right to enjoy their nieghborhoods, I am sure you wouldn't deny that. Myself I love Saint Paul, but I grew up over the big Muddy in Wisconsin so there you go :-). It will all work itself out in the laundry

A Leopard 2 can reach 100+ km/h on asphalt if you bypass the rev limiter, but steering becomes tricky and the noise unbearable. That said, both Leopard 2 and Marder (IFV, like a Bradley) regularly exceed 80 km/h at the nearby training grounds -- offroad, across muddy fields.

Pretension?! Middle-class?! Jeeves, eject this ruffian from the premises of my middle-class abode. I'll have no muddy footed coal diggers roaming around my luxurious 2 bedroom apartment.

Especially not when we upgrade to *gasp* a condo!

@ChaosEngine, again, I don't entirely disagree with you. I think allowing the law to protect the rights of the individual makes total sense. Whether that individual is a minor or adult.

Where we definitely will have our disagreement is, as you mentioned, to the extent of the laws' reach.

I think laws should protect the minority, not impose the majority's will. I also believe children should have a voice in their personal choices that supersedes the will of the parents or the will of society.

I understand a seven-year-old child who was homeschooled that God will cure his cancer may not be the most qualified mind to make complex medical decisions, but, in the end, we either give people control over their lives or we pretend to know best.

Just because you and I don't believe God will cure little Jimmy's cancer doesn't mean we should have a right to tell little Jimmy he has to go to the hospital and receive care. Otherwise we end up with these kinds of stories.

The war on drugs is a perfect example of the majority, or community, knowing best how we should all run our lives. So was prohibition in the States. So are seatbelt laws, soda bans, sin taxes, prostitution bans, Tennessee's baggy pants law, bans on rain collection, fines for muddy tires, gambling laws, private establishment smoking bans, and even NJ going as far as to ban hugs in a middle school.

People know best how to run their own lives. Families at least have an interest in the well-being of their members. But the community doesn't always make the best legislative decisions when trying to do good.

That's a semantic argument as far as agnosticism being a belief. You could substitute the word 'claims', 'avers', 'states', 'posits' and just as easily have a good definition of agnosticism. I'm on your side, but I think Barbar explained it better and this is just muddying the waters.

I agree with you on the grounds that a "bunch" of polls would muddy the waters quite a bit. What I am suggesting is having 1 additional polling spot.

I'm sure you're all far more stunned than I am.

Who would have ever believed a drifter from the wrong side of the tracks, with a penchant for mischief and nonconformity, would someday be crowned. Only in Siftopia may the lowest-of-low rise to such majesty.

But I couldn't have done it without all of you. And for that, I'm much obliged! Thanks, for watching my videos and begrudgingly upvoting 2/3 of them.

But seriously, special thanks to my friends: kulpims, geo, alco, enoch, kronos, choggie and blankfist (don't they have a reality show by now?), usesprozac, evildisco, lurgee (thanks, for the push), rasch, swarmy, marinegunrock (yeah, you! you big glug), bareboards, dag, chingelera, chichorea, Nicolebee (kicked my ass in Civ), pumkin, mint and netrunner (take me off block, dude), gwizz and lann, selter, lucky, rottenseed, gorilla, eric, playhouse, death kitty, laura, peggedbea (you're one of the best), and all the others (I've overlooked a lot of good ones, but I should be doing homework right now -- I'll promote your videos while you sleep, precious forgotten) wonderful folk who stomp the shores of Videosift.

And thank you, for not kicking me out that one time. Let this be a lesson to weigh dooming judgements when the waters are muddied by anger.

And to all the haters ... a motherfucking crown, mofos!!!

Now that I've finally earned the right to deflower every maiden on her wedding night, I'm starting to warm up to this place.

Now guzzle your drinks, and salute your favorite things!

1 more comment have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

Watching this - especially watching Georgia Purdom, I could have sworn this was a parody. From the way she looks and dresses to the utter made up opinionated crap she is saying honestly made me think this was all just made up for the sake of comedy.

There needs to be a law on the use of the words science and scientists because these people are neither. Charlatans through and through. They muddy and confuse what science even is when they spout fiction and call it science.

Well, a powerful woman.

This really was an epic beatdown and a long time coming. The context muddies the waters considerably but so thoroughly deserved even if it is just a Labor party campaign for narrative.

Great find. Shame the sound is so muddy. The CD recording has such intensity to it.

Even this vid falls into the unfortunate focus on the "legitimate" part of his comments, in its first alternate apology.

"I said some very insensitive things."

No. YOU BELIEVE NONSENSE CRACKPOT NON-SCIENCE and should not be in charge making legislation.

There is no conspiracy -- it is lazy journalism (it took over 24 hours for the journalists to start quoting real science -- an eternity in a world of instantaneous communication. I have been pretty frustrated at the amount of words spent around the "legitimate rape" while that second part sat there like a giant stinking turd.

Laziness. Lack of critical thinking. Outrage over feelings sells, science doesn't.

Still.

*celebrate the linkage of politicians back to crap science.


>> ^vaire2ube:

Press refocused on how he WORDED the issue, rather than pointing out he believes your body can avoid a rape baby because, very , you know... its what he BELIEVES.
who gave the orders to spin that one... the overlords were watching and mitigated this whole thing with a bunch of bad coverage and pundit spewing... its the next best thing to executing people who dont agree with your opinion.. muddy the swiftboat waters

Press refocused on how he WORDED the issue, rather than pointing out he believes your body can avoid a rape baby because, because, you know... its what he BELIEVES.

who gave the orders to spin that one... the overlords were watching and mitigated this whole thing with a bunch of bad coverage and pundit spewing... its the next best thing to executing people who dont agree with your opinion.. muddy the swiftboat waters

You say you are not separating the inherent evil of superstitious/religious beliefs from the the social evils it perpetuates, but then you go and skirt my whole argument, reducing the negative aspect of religion (which you seem to reduce to "organised religion", suggesting it is the institution and not the fundamental beliefs that are at to be discussed) to... the sociocultural evils (creationism, pedophilia, etc.). My point remains made and unchallenged.

As for the whole "without religion there can be no inspired art", that is a myth organised religion (especially the RCC) likes to keep alive, and is doing a good job apparently. Great art celebrates nature, humankind, humankind's stories and mythos, illustrates its fears and desires, etc etc, all of which will go on after the belief in invisible sky-daddies dies away. Because the Church had money and power, they could buy the talent, that's all. I am sure some religious artists were inspired by their devotion, just like others are by drug trips, sex, fears, and of course by psychological disorders. That does not render religious belief a positive in society that needs to be preserved.

Like I've said elsewhere, it's good to want to reduce the symptoms, but futile if we do not also attack the disease behind them. So yes, there is a great need to argue against religion, which is what allows the sociocultural symptoms you mention to exist.
>> ^jonny:

@hpqp: The first problem here is that you are extrapolating my response into something it's not. PostalBlowfish commented that "There is nothing positive to be gained from religion that can't be realized without it." My response to that has multiple points which apparently I haven't articulated very well. To add another though, it seems pretty clear that religious inspiration in art and music would be hard to duplicate without it, i.e., it is often the very nature of the supernatural belief that is inspirational. But to your point, that does not at all imply that I am "divorc[ing] the inherently negative aspects of religion/religious belief and the sociocultural evils it has often enshrined".
I'm not being naive or disingenuous - I've literally thought about this stuff for decades. In no way do I excuse any organized religion from its sanctioned evils (e.g., harboring pedophiles). For a long time I viewed religion as the source of many of the evils in society. But I've since come to realize that the evils directly attributable to religion are not intrinsic to religion, but to more fundamental aspects of human nature. And it is those fundamentally human traits that I think we, as a society, should be focused on rising above. Tribalism is one that I tend to focus on, and my point here is that religion is an expression of it, rather than a source of it.
Human's basic need to be tribal is kind of a big topic, so let me offer a more targeted, if tangential, example of what I mean. Consider the teaching of creationism in science classes. The most effective argument against it is that creationism is not science. Arguments against religious interference, separation of church and state, etc., only serve to muddy the waters and alienate the very people we would want to convince that creationism doesn't belong in science classes. There is no need to appeal to larger arguments against religion.