Pakistan Blocks YouTube

Multiple readers have written to tell us of news that Pakistan has ordered its ISPs to block access to YouTube "for containing blasphemous web content/movies." This follows increasing unrest in Pakistan over a Danish newspaper's reprinting of cartoons which depict Islam in a less-than-favorable light. The cartoons also sparked controversy when they were first published a few years ago.

Comments

Lets bring these people up to speed

[Anonymous Coward]

We really need to bring these people up to speed with the 21st century. What's the best way to do it? Just start trading with them like anyone else, it's not their fault that they are a bunch of ignorant, gullible sheep (cue the "omg its like teh USA!!!1" comments).

Yes it will take time to achieve any results, but economic prosperity and theism are inversely related, and theism in places like Pakistan is really fucked up and needs to be eliminated or at least marginalized.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[Stormwatch]

So... why is [i]male[/i] genital mutilation still acceptable in the USA?

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[Quiet_Desperation]

We really need to bring these people up to speed with the 21st century. What's the best way to do it? Three weeks of heavy meteorite bombardment followed by moving in a new population of sane people.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[Wonko the Sane]

Remind me what is wrong with circumcision?

The kids don't get to decide if they want a perfectly healthy part of their body removed.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[rucs_hack]

The best thing that could be done with Pakistan is to raise the number of books people read.

Many people there, if they read at all, read religious texts only.

That's your problem. If they had a wider experience in the written word, they wouldn't be so easily led by Clerics with an agenda.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[melikamp]

People do not like to admit it about genocide, but if you do it thoroughly, then it actually works, i.e. solves all problems relating to the unpleasant minority, once and for all. You know what is really ironic? That USians modded the parent +funny, whereas it really should be +insightful. Once you get it into your head that it is your Progress-given mission to bring some sovereign people into the 21-st century, genocide is an obvious answer. Bush would wipe Iraq clean if he could, a long time ago (he obviously does not give a shit about 1M Iraqis, almost all of them civilians, dieing due to war, why would he care about 25M?), but US is not powerful enough to do that with conventional weapons, nor does it have enough clout to get away with it.

How about, instead of "bringing Arabs democracy" and "liberating them from an archaic religion", you liberate them from economic oppression and let them decide what to do with their own oil? Switch to alternative energy sources, perhaps? Develop a defensive military strategy, which should work just fine, as you are on your own frigging continent? Just my 2 cents.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[garett_spencley]

Study after study has found no significant health benefits sufficient enough to warrant circumcision. The American Medical Association no longer recommends the procedure and Ontario Public Health Care no longer pays for it.

It is technically true that cases of penile cancer are virtually unheard of in males with circumcision, but then again, penile cancer is SO RARE to begin with that it even begs the question of whether or not the sample size is large enough to be conclusive.

And of course, like the other poster pointed out, the children have no say in whether or not a perfectly healthy part of their body is permanently removed.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[@madeus]

So... why is male genital mutilation still acceptable in the USA? That's certainly something that illudes me.

I'm leaning towards "the parents who do that do their children are ignorant and unthinking, and don't realize it's a practice that's consider barbaric - and is illegal - in more enlightened European countries" and "the commercial nature of the US healthcare system has lead to hospitals routinely carry out entirely unnecessary cosmetic surgery - even when it's harmful to the patient - because it's profitable".

Religious zealots have certainly managed to brainwash the US populace on this one, to convince them it's a "morally acceptable" practice, even a humorous thing to discuss if you've had your genitals mutilated. In reality, it's an outdated, entirely unnecessary, damaging and irreparable act of barbarism - IMO anyone carrying out this practice on children should be locked up (and, if a medical practitioner, have their license permanently revoked).

If grown adults want to have this procedure carried out on themselves then, apart from undergoing some counciling, they may as well be allowed to have it carried out by someone qualified. If indeed grown adults were left to make the decision for themselves, I think the percentage of people who would volunteer for this practice would be tiny and the industry around it would almost completely die out in the US (apart from within certain specific religious groups).

Fat chance of much change on that front happening in the US though.

Here in the UK it's illegal to carry out the practice, with a caveat: When it can be proven before a judge that a the child is likely to suffer as a result and both parents agree they want it carried out (e.g. if the child is Jewish or Muslim and likely to be teased, harassed or singled out by their cultural peers and so in some way negatively impacted as a result of the operation not being carried out) then it may be carried out (but Doctors or Surgeons are not obligated to carry it out, and may refuse to do it, that it's a violation of the Hippocratic Oath being a common citation as grounds for refusal).

While I can appreciate on the surface this is an attempt to reach some pragmatic accommodation, I think this is the wrong approach and the law needs to be changed here too. I don't see medically unnecessary cosmetic surgery on children's genitals as acceptable, full stop. It's systematic of the UK justice system though - in the eyes of the populace the government rarely deals with the perpetrators of crimes directly or appropriately - it's easier just to tell the rest of us to change our behaviors to fit in with however they have redefined the problem.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[Wonko the Sane]

Study after study has found no significant health benefits sufficient enough to warrant circumcision.

No one wants to admit any more that the primary health benefit for which circumcision was made popular in the USA was to "cure" masturbation. That, along with cornflakes.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[Lord Kano]

Yes it will take time to achieve any results, but economic prosperity and theism are inversely related, and theism in places like Pakistan is really fucked up and needs to be eliminated or at least marginalized.

Yeah, because we all know that making money is the only thing that matters in life.

L

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[letxa2000]

...he obviously does not give a shit about 1M Iraqis, almost all of them civilians, dieing due to war

That number is not generally considered credible except by extreme leftists where the number benefits their agenda. Calculating deaths by polling is rather absurd.

but US is not powerful enough to do that with conventional weapons,

Actually, we probably are powerful enough to level the main population centers indiscriminately with conventional weapons. I'm glad we haven't done so, though.

nor does it have enough clout to get away with it.

I would hope no-one has enough clout to get away with genocide.

People do not like to admit it about genocide, but if you do it thoroughly, then it actually works,

Just because it might work doesn't mean the ends justify the means.

Develop a defensive military strategy, which should work just fine, as you are on your own frigging continent?

Because we had a defensive military strategy and we were still hit hard on 9/11, even though we're on our own friggin' continent.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[Aglassis]

Not entirely true. It has been shown to dramatically reduce the HIV transmission rate so it is being used in sub-Saharan Africa to combat AIDS. I should note that this treatment is done with adult males who can choose for themselves, not babies who are disfigured so as to not anger some invisible man in the sky.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[Wonko the Sane]

Education has a lot more impact on a child. Nutrition. Home life. Television.

You can recover from all of those. You can't (yet) regrow parts of the body that have been surgically removed.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[Wonko the Sane]

there is some medical evidence that circumcision (which I assume is what you mean) does decrease the incidence of certain types of infections.

HIV does not propagate as readily through scar tissue as it does through healthy skin.

I can also reduce lung cancer by 50% by removing everyone's left lung...

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[orzetto]

Well, there's no conclusive evidence that it is harmful either, now is there? Where's that study?

As far as I know there is no study about harm coming from amputation of the pinky finger, but cutting pinky fingers from babies would probably be less accepted, wouldn't it? The point is that you are mutilating a person without his consent. Your same arguments can be put in the mouth of some advocate of infibulation in a country where that is considered normal.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[Quiet_Desperation]

Well, I was sort of *going* for the +Funny... not really advocating genocide...

(backs away slowly while placing hand on sword hilt)

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[MightyYar]

You can recover from all of those. No, you can't. Proper nutrition is essential in your formative years. Your stunted brain development can't be reversed. Behavioral problems can sometimes be reversed, but sometimes not. 18 years of education is hard to replicate later in life. These problems are ALL worse than any consequences of male circumcision - if there are any at all.

You can't (yet) regrow parts of the body that have been surgically removed. Yes, you can. But that is beside the point. The point is that there is no demonstrated effect on someone who receives a male circumcision - good or bad.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[melikamp]

That number is not generally considered credible except by extreme leftists where the number benefits their agenda. Calculating deaths by polling is rather absurd.

I agree, this number is too high for a fair estimate, but I do not use it as such. It is clear to me, though, that Bush and other US leaders are OK with that many people dieing. They don't even bother counting. There are some 90K documented deaths due to violence so far, and may be another 90K undocumented. But that is just violence: we didn't even start counting those who died due to economic sanctions (lots of infants there), hunger, disease, forced relocation, etc. We are looking at hundreds of thousands, and the official policy deems this perception acceptable.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[vasilli41]

So the anti-circumcision crowd has one good point. People got to see the irony here. We have to make excuses for not cutting off genitalia of baby boys!

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[Wonko the Sane]

The point is that there is no demonstrated effect on someone who receives a male circumcision - good or bad.

I'm not a doctor, but this guy is.

Male circumcision permanently removes normal, functional, specialised tissue. It removes specialised sensory tissue [17], half the penile skin [17] and removes the normal gliding function that facilitates intromission [18]. Circumcision removes the most sensitive part of the penis [19].

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[nurb432]

But if they don't want to join the 21st century? Who gives you the right force it dow their throat?

They are a sovereign nation, they should be allowed to be stuck in the dark ages if they want.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[Stormwatch]

Actually, no, it does not. Even worse: tell men they are protected (although they are not) and they will not bother using condoms. Ergo, circumcision helps spread AIDS.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[Teun]

You forgot those that were killed by Saddam...

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[Stormwatch]

Well, there's no conclusive evidence that it is harmful either, now is there?

Yes, there is. Read and learn.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[__aapspi39]

"...regrow parts of the body"

Any faith healers care to take this challenge up? no i thought not.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[AiToyonsNostril]

There is a difference between cutting off a part of your sexual organ leaving you capable of experiencing full orgasm and cutting off (or completely mangling the nerves of) the entire part of your sexual organ which allows for an orgasm thus leaving you incapable of feeling anything good down there just because women are not supposed to be interested in sex (or to prevent extramarital sex, or whatever the reason du jour is). Having any sense of proportion would tell you that the two are incomparable and however bad the first might be, bringing it into a discussion about the latter is very frivolous regardless of how passionate you might feel about it.

The first is a cruel tradition which has persisted for millennia, the second is a part of a barrage of misogynistic practices designed to keep 51 percent of the population in fear. Barrage including rape of virgins to "cure" one's AIDS, stoning of women for being on the wrong side of a mood, and hanging of women for getting themselves raped, defending themselves against rape, wearing makeup, not being attractive to their men and basically being human in the presence of men.

Two very, very, very different things.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[Stormwatch]

If it was a tradition to chop off the pinky finger, someone with a complete hand would be seen as a freak...

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[Anonymous Coward]

Congratulations on failing to read my post or my link. Your link states that it was to "determine the impact of early childhood circumcision" which is *not* what was being discussed. By the way, The WHO disagrees with you, recommending:

1.1 Male circumcision should now be recognized as an efficacious intervention for HIV prevention.
1.2 Promoting male circumcision should be recognized as an additional, important strategy for the prevention of heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men.
2.1 Male circumcision should never replace other known methods of HIV prevention and should always be considered as part of a comprehensive HIV prevention package, which includes: promoting delay in the onset of sexual relations, abstinence from penetrative sex and reduction in the number of sexual partners; providing and promoting correct and consistent use of male and female condoms; providing HIV testing and counselling services; and providing services for the treatment of sexually transmitted infections.

Nobody is saying that circumcision now makes you safe. That is your strawman. What they are saying is that it reduces the risk and for that reason it should be used as a preventative measure in certain areas.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[MightyYar]

I'm not a doctor, but this guy is. And even he concedes that infant circumcision may be another ball of wax.

Male circumcision permanently removes normal, functional, specialised tissue. Not disputing that - just disputing that it matters at all.

It removes specialised sensory tissue Why does this matter?

half the penile skin Why does this matter?

removes the normal gliding function that facilitates intromission Why does this matter?

Circumcision removes the most sensitive part of the penis Why does this matter?

I contend that it doesn't really matter. His statistics about complications includes adults. If you are having a circumcision as an adult, it is because of some condition that is being treated and it should come as no surprise that things don't always go right.

Particularly humorous to me is that the pictures found on the internet of "botched" circumcisions are often lifted right out of gay porn! So apparently a penis good enough to sell pictures of in magazines is horribly disfigured! LOL.

Seriously, go find a cause that matters and leave us parents to decide for ourselves. Go pester parents that aren't feeding their children properly or don't help them with their homework.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

Am I missing something here? The urethra - the delivery mechanism for semen, which carries HIV - is still a direct pipeline, except perhaps to the point of exit where there is a bit of skin. That is not scar tissue whether circumcised or not, as the scar tissue occurs below that point. The semen does not contact the scar tissue on the way out, it's a direct deposit. So to speak. So how would presence or absence of scar tissue have any effect at all? (Just applying some common sense and basic knowledge of anatomy... )

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[spacefrog]

Here in the UK it's illegal to carry out the practice, with a caveat So in other words, it's legal.

Which Eurpoean country is 'more enlightened'? Not only does Wikipedia contradict your statement about the UK, but your 'mysterious enlightened country' is no where to be found.

I'm strongly opposed to circumcision . . . and talking out your ass.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[Stormwatch]

Indeed, let's have some sense of proportion. A truly equivalent procedure would be the removal of the clitoral hood.

Which, you see... happens to be a crime in pretty much any western country.

And that brings us back to the original question: why is male genital mutilation allowed?

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[Aglassis]

Accidentally posted anonymously, sorry. Another thing that I should note about the recommendations of the WHO is that they also supported circumcision of young children, which is ethically troubling and as you have pointed out it has not been shown to be effective. Perhaps with the report you cited they will change their recommendations on that point, but they will probably still consider adult circumcision to be a useful preventative measure.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[the_bard17]

Here's a quick study for you. Type without your pinkies, and now type with your pinkies - a bit faster, no? You don't need a study to see why pinky fingers are useful.

Disclaimer: For those of you who suffer from sensitivity to "Too Much Information", now would be a good time to skip this post and continue on. All others, feel free to read on...

Personal anecdote: I'm uncircumcised. Still got my foreskin, and nobody's taking it from me. Does it serve a purpose? You betcha. I ended up snapping my frenulum several years ago. I simply bandaged it up for a few days, and it healed nicely. However, this required me to pull the foreskin back and keep it there for the duration.

Woooeeee... lemme tell you, sensitive doesn't even begin to describe it. Y'all circumcised guys might have grown used to it, since you "don't know any better" (assuming they cut on you at birth), but my glans was constantly rubbing, and it drove me crazy. I couldn't wait for it to heal, so I could cover it back up again.

For any gals that might be reading, my wife mentioned it must be like taking a dry cloth and rubbing against your clitoris all day long. Heaven forbid a dry finger come into contact with her clit... cotton or denim? Ha! There's reasons the foreskin and labia exist... and separating the sensitive bits from the irritants sounds like a good reason to me.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[MightyYar]

Yes, but where is this a practiced tradition? It's not practiced because it is silly.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[cain]

...economic prosperity and theism are inversely related...

This is false. The United States is one of the most religious countries, yet it seems to be doing pretty well for itself economically.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[MightyYar]

Y'all circumcised guys might have grown used to it, since you "don't know any better" (assuming they cut on you at birth), but my glans was constantly rubbing, and it drove me crazy. I'm circumcised, and yeah - it doesn't bother us (or at least me). It's not very surprising - I mean you get chopped so early, before your brain even makes all of its connections. If it bothered people so much, I doubt that we'd have been doing it for 6000 years.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[MightyYar]

It seems like a pretty big site - that's sort of like pointing me to the New York Times and saying, SEE?

Do you have a specific journal article? I browsed and only saw things saying that circumcision conferred no benefits, which I wasn't disputing. I'm claiming that it doesn't inflict enough harm to worry about.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[MightyYar]

Forget it - they are modding me flamebait. At least mod "overrated" or something that makes sense... "flamebait"?

These people are more vicious than the Scientologists. Who knew they were in such force on slashdot?

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[Wonko the Sane]

Why does this matter?

Because sex and sexual enjoyment are fundamental functions of the penis. Certain religious beliefs profess that sexual enjoyment is immoral, but certainly the government should not allow parents to disfigure helpless infants solely for ideological reasons. When the child is old enough to decide if he (or she) wants his sexual functions to conform to his parents' religion, then he can make that (irreversible) decision himself.

leave us parents to decide for ourselves.

What makes you think that I'm not included in that group?

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[AiToyonsNostril]

No, a truly equivalent procedure to female genital mutilation would be a part of the wholesale maltreatment, murder and persecution of your gender in your country. Just so your suffering can be compared to some painful, irreversible but not mutilating procedure in a privileged white country.

As long as you can still have an orgasm, you're miles ahead of any woman whose clitoris has been mutilated.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[MightyYar]

We have to make excuses for not cutting off genitalia of baby boys! It's not ironic if you phrase it another way: We have to make excuses for giving a shit about what people do with their genitalia (or the genitalia of their kids).

Unless you have an excuse, it's not any of your business.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[Yvanhoe]

Then you will be happy to know that in the latest elections radical religious are considered the biggest losers. They lost a lot of their political power.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[jdb2]

Mod parent up! Male circumcision is a sick and barbaric act. Now let me explain why. The parts of the female genitals that are homologous to the male prepuce ( foreskin ) are the clitoral hood, the top layer of the clitoris that comes into contact with the clitoral hood, and the skin that surrounds the immediate vicinity of the clitoris. Male circumcision is directly analogous to female circumcision in that the clitoral hood is removed, the top length of the clitoris is scraped off, and then some surrounding skin is removed. The clitoral hood contains tens of thousands of nerve endings on its inner mucous membrane. Also, the top side of the clitoris' mucous membrane contains thousands of nerve endings. In a male, this means that circumcision destroys the thousands of nerve endings on the inner mucous membrane of the prepuce, the frenulum, the ridged band, and it also destroys half of the penile shaft skin which constitutes the prepuce. ( making your dick shorter in the process ) The frenulum, which is also present in females, is a piece of connective tissue between the inner prepuce and the underside of the glans that keeps the prepuce taught. It is supplied by the Frenular Artery and drained by two veins. Ignoring all that I said before the last sentence, if the prepuce is useless, why is it a nervous and vascular plexus? Also, it is a known scientific fact that the most sensitive areas on the body are found in the mucocutaneous boundary, of which the ridged band is a member. It sits at the boundary between the outer skin of the prepuce and the inner mucous membrane. It contains thousands of fine touch and other receptors. Destroying this effectively cripples a males ability for a complete sexual experience since it is the most sensitive part of the male body. The corona ( the part around the lower circumference of the glans penis ( the top of the penis) ) is only an ejaculatory trigger -- most of the sexual pleasure comes from the ridged band, frenulum, and prepuce. That is to say, almost all of the sexual pleasure, even including orgasm, is governed by parts of the prepuce -- the glans penis is only there to induce ejaculation. The most barbaric part of circumcision is the process itself. A few month old infant has at least twice the pain sensitivity of an adult due to the fact that the body at this point is hypersensitive to any pain as the infant's only way of communicating it is to scream. Infants are not anesthetized during the procedure and they go into a state of shock because of the pain. This also affects the infant-mother bond, as after such a horrendous experience, the infant is less trusting and more distanced from their mother. ( I sure damn would be if someone let a "Doctor" ( first do no harm anyone? ) slice up my dick!) Even sicker is that the severed foreskin is sold for use in skin grafting and cosmetic research -- it's actually an industry. As for "health benefits", there are none. An often cited reason for circumcision is to prevent urinary tract infections but the prepuce is specifically evolved to protect the urethral orifice! -- and hence urinary tract infections. It also protects the sensitive glans penis from infection or damage, because in a normal male the glans is a mucous membrane, just like the clitoris. ( it dries out after circumcision )

In conclusion, we have a country mostly composed of "Christians" who espouse the importance of "Family Values" while at the same time allowing their male children to be sexually mutilated by a perverse health care system. And even sicker, is that this all started back in the early twentieth century to "prevent" masturbation since it was thought that masturbation was the cause of all manner of diseases and "moral defects" -- eg. if you masturbate a lot then you'll probably start raping women. But that didn't stop males from masturbating, it just made masturbating much harder and less pleasurable for a circumcised male.

jdb2

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[MightyYar]

Because sex and sexual enjoyment are fundamental functions of the penis. I like my sex just fine, and I'm circumcised. Americans seem to have no problems having sex, either - and we certainly don't delay sex compared to other industrialized countries. I think this is barking up the wrong tree.

What makes you think that I'm not included in that group? You certainly aren't the parent of MY children, so unless you have a double-blind controlled study showing some kind of deleterious effect of circumcision... back off. Even then, the effect would have to be large enough to justify all of this hoopla. As I said before, there are much bigger problems that children face with their upbringing. The flap of skin on their penis is inconsequential.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[LordLucless]

Galations 5:6

For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.

Whatever reason people have for circumcision, it's not to conform to Biblical doctrine.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[AiToyonsNostril]

You know, reading this over, I realize you have misunderstood what I am saying. I am not claiming that circumcision is okay and should be kept up - quite the opposite.

I am saying that female genital mutilation is an issue way more sordid than most situations we in the Western world have encountered (yes, even circumcision) if partly because it is an integral part of a culture of hatred and fear and partly because those women are denied any real healthy sexual experience. So yes, it is too flippant for people to go "but what about the poor mens" immediately after someone mentions FGM.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[Wonko the Sane]

Male circumcision is claimed to reduce the female-to-male transmission rate. Women are just as likely to be infected by a man either way.

The inner surface of the foreskin contains Langerhans' cells with HIV receptors; these cells are likely to be the primary point of viral entry into the penis of an uncircumcised man

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[melikamp]

I spell in Russian, my native language, just fine.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[Wonko the Sane]

So...

Permanently removing any body part a parent chooses from an infant is justified as long as no "double-blind controlled study" shows a harmful affect?

Children are not property. Unless there is a "double-blind controlled study" showing a benefit, removing body parts is basically ricing your child.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[Stormwatch]

If it bothered people so much, I doubt that we'd have been doing it for 6000 years.

Female genital mutilation has been going on for many centuries. By your reasoning, that must be no big deal either.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[Stormwatch]

We have to make excuses for giving a shit about what people do with their genitalia (or the genitalia of their kids). Unless you have an excuse, it's not any of your business.

Let me stretch this just a bit... "So what if I cut a piece of my kids' genitals? So what if I brutalize them? So what if I rape them? So what if I kill them? I can do whatever I want to them, and it's none of your damn business. They're mine! They're my property!

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[urbanriot]

Uh, have you not had sex before?

Circumcision removes the most sensitive part of the penis Why does this matter?

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[mwlewis]

Theism != religeous

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[Stormwatch]

It's because your views in this matter are so outrageous, it's hard to realize if you're really that deranged, or just pretend to be.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[MightyYar]

How does this pinky thing keep coming up? NO ONE CUTS OFF THEIR PINKY!

Also, this has nothing to do with religion. Most people in the US are circumcised, despite no religious significance.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[MightyYar]

By your reasoning, that must be no big deal either. Well, yeah, if I were a moron and you hadn't just completely stripped my argument of context.

Female circumcision HAS been shown to have deleterious health effects. Male circumcision has NOT been shown to have deleterious health effects.

See the difference? One is a harmless ritual and the other is a harmful ritual.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[Wonko the Sane]

Unless it is detrimental

A few different posts in this thread link to material showing how it is detrimental. The problem is that some people consider the impairment of sexual function not to be detrimental.

and you need to go all fascist on them.

I'm all for adults doing whatever kind of mutilation they want to their own bodies. I don't believe they have the same right to alter their child's body. This meets your definition of fascist?

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[MightyYar]

Are you actually defending the comparison between chopping off a pinky and circumcision? Good God, you people are mad.

NO CULTURE CUTS OFF THEIR PINKY FINGERS! Hello? It is a completely imaginary custom with obvious deleterious health effects. Circumcision has NO proven deleterious health effects. See the difference?

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[Vvaghel1]

occam's razor : is we decide it has no effect, you should really argue that it needs to go

                  pretty simple really

      sidenote : i read about men getting circumzied in africa and being statistically less likely to get AIDS during unprotected sex. so it might have its uses, but i doubt this is a fact, might just have been a statistic they teased out of interviewing circumcised/noncircumsized males in africa

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[Wonko the Sane]

deleterious health effects

So it's only harmful it if makes you sick?

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[the brown guy]

I don't think the US was hit that hard by 911, 2k deaths is a lot, but cannot be compared to 1M iraqi deaths.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[RincewindTVD]

It's also proven to reduce the female-to-male and male-to-male transmission rate. Now I'm not saying that suddenly makes it right, or that condoms and sex-ed aren't a lot more helpful in reducing HIV transmission rates.. but check facts before going "oh, it's claimed that this is the case [but we all know better]"

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[MightyYar]

Let me stretch this just a bit... I'd say you stretched it out more than just a bit. None of those things you mentioned is innocuous.

Brutalize? Numerous studies show a link between child abuse and later problems in life - including domestic violence.

Rape? Murder? Aren't we getting a bit silly? Rape also has deleterious effects, and I doubt I need to get into murder.

On the other hand, you are trying to tell people what to do with their kids without any proof or evidence to back your opinion up.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[MightyYar]

Last time I checked, it was perfectly reasonable to be upset that a parent was physically harming their child. Care to show me how circumcision is harming their child? Do that and I'll change my tune really quick. Right now, no one has been able to show how circumcision harms a child - only that it confers no medical benefit.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[RincewindTVD]

Aw, that comment I made made me sound like a dick.. circumcised or not...

and none of this is super-on topic anyway...

So, Pakistan blocking Youtube..
Well, taking their side for a bit, the government is supposed to be the representative of the people, so if their people want it, then I suppose it's up to their government to make it happen. Is there any detail saying that large groups are outraged by the blocking?

Is this a nanny-state question with the govt censoring the internet to preserve it's people's innocence? or is it religious extremism?

I'm sure if my country could they would block from the internet what the majority of people here consider to be morally wrong, e.g. child porn, bestiality etc.

Not to say that youtube is in the same league as those examples, but that the people there may find them as offensive. Which I can't really understand, but if they voted them in, then supposedly they are considered fit representatives... or the best they could do out of a bad lot.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[Skim123]

Study after study has found no significant health benefits sufficient enough to warrant circumcision. The American Medical Association no longer recommends the procedure and Ontario Public Health Care no longer pays for it.

I've heard that HPV rates are lower in circumcised men.

A bit of Googling... Circumcision lowers risk of cervical cancer:

Women whose sexual partners are circumcised are less likely to develop cervical cancer than the partners of uncircumcised men, concludes a report out today. The difference was statistically significant only in the partners of men considered to be at high risk for infection with human papillomavirus, or HPV, according to the study in The New England Journal of Medicine. HPV causes genital warts in men and women, and certain strains cause virtually all cervical cancers. HPV also has been linked to cancers of the vagina, anus and penis.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[MightyYar]

Considering that most people in the US are circumcised, I'd reexamine how you think I might be "outrageous". It's outrageous to tell people how to raise their kids without a shred of backing for your opinion. TV is demonstrably BAD, yet you don't force people to stop watching TV. Sugar is demonstrably BAD for nutrition, yet you don't force people to stop feeding their kid sugary cereals. Yet you pick something circumcision to start pushing your beliefs on other people with?

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[MightyYar]

It doesn't seem to make me enjoy sex less - but how would I know if I never had that part to compare it with? Seriously, does it really matter? It was only the most sensitive part of my penis for a day at most. Then it was cut off, and I don't miss it.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[Stormwatch]

Holy crap, seems like you managed to miss the titles of the sections in that site. That's a feat!

* Foreskin sexual function
* Complications of circumcision
* Deaths from circumcision
* Pain of circumcision and pain control
* Psychological aspects of circumcision
* Effects of circumcision on breastfeeding, maternal bonding, and child development

I don't know about your eyesight, but choosing not to see is also a form of blindness.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[Skim123]

The best thing that could be done with Pakistan is to raise the number of books people read.

First things first: let's help raise the literacy rate. You've really got to respect the work being done by the Central Asia Institute, as they are building non-fundamentalist schools in rural Pakistan and Afghanistan, with schools especially targeted to girls. In a perfect world, our government would cut the spending on armament and give the decrease to the CAI to build schools. That's the best long-term strategy to solving fundamentalism, IMO.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[MightyYar]

The problem is that some people consider the impairment of sexual function not to be detrimental. Actually, the problem that I have with this is that no one has show impairment of sexual function in adults that were circumcised as infants. People in the US seem to be having plenty of sex, and seem to be happy with it. I've yet to see a study linking lack of sexual satisfaction to infant circumcision.

I don't believe they have the same right to alter their child's body. This meets your definition of fascist? NO. You have the right to your own beliefs. You start to acquire fascist-like tendencies when you foist your beliefs onto others. Come at me with facts, not ideology.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[Wonko the Sane]

You've ignored every fact that's been brought up so far.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[MightyYar]

Well... yes. Either physically or psychologically. How would you define harm?

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[houghi]

Personal anecdote. I am circumsised on a later age. I thus know what you are talking about and I know the differnce with and without. In the first few weeks you are extremely sensative.

I will not go into detail anymore then needed. However after a while the sensitivaty was back to normal.

For those who have boys as kids and they have too narrow a foreskin: do something about it before they reach puberty. There is no fund in having stiches and waking up with a woody (and unable to do anything about it for several weeks)

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[Tore S B]

Because the male equivalent of female genital mutilation is removing the glans penis. And that's a tad more horrible than something doctors can't even agree on whether is bad or not.

I don't think circumcision makes any sense, but I think it trivializes female genital mutilation to suggest that they're anywhere in the same league of badness.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[value_added]

I've heard that HPV rates are lower in circumcised men.

If there's any validity to that, my guess is that it's because they can keep the damned thing on and not be subject to any changes in normal sensation.

Contrary to the typical medical brochure would have you believe, condoms simply "don't work" for the uncircumsized. And they work even less well for those of who need the ... Xtra Large size.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[MightyYar]

And where, pray tell, is the study showing a correlation between infant circumcision and any kind of "harm", physical or mental. I see a lot of pictures and scary "facts", but not a lot of studies. Certainly nothing peer-reviewed or double-blind.

Give me something to click.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[Tore S B]

Yeah, but, to the best of my knowledge this happens nowhere in the world. It's silly.
This might as well have been brought up in an alternate universe with "pinky" and "foreskin" reversed. Removing the foreskin doesn't make a whole lot of sense either.

So are earrings, nose studs, tattoos, and makeup. What's your point?
How would you react if parents gave their baby earrings, a nose stud, a tattoo, and makeup?

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[Tore S B]

You would probably have gotten more pleasure out of sex if the foreskin had been there to prevent desensitization of the glans penis - aka the penis head.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[Tore S B]

I, and most doctors, would consider an impaired sex life as a "deleterious health effect". Since the lack of a foreskin undeniable desensitizes the glans, this is the net effect.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[MightyYar]

Removing the foreskin doesn't make a whole lot of sense either. It doesn't have to make sense. People do lots of things that don't make sense. But until they do something that is actually demonstrated to be harmful, we generally leave them alone.

How would you react if parents gave their baby earrings, a nose stud, a tattoo, and makeup? Are you serious? It is quite common for babies in the US to have earrings. I'm sure that other cultures practice the other things.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[Wonko the Sane]

How would you define harm?

This sounds pretty harmful:

For many years the mainstream medical orthodoxy, put forth after it was no longer acceptable to torture children in the name of "moral hygiene," was that babies don't feel pain. It wasn't until 1978 that researchers even suggested using anesthetic during circumcision, and even today, most medical circumcisions are performed without anesthesia, according to the AMA. [73] This is in stark contrast to what is known about infant pain perception and its profound and lasting effects on the victim, as well as the plainly obvious reaction of the infant boy, who forcefully communicates his torment to anyone who will look and listen. Choking and breathing problems arise due to the continuous screaming. Surges in adrenaline and cortisol and large increases in heart rate, all established physiological indicators of torture, have been measured. [74] Some babies appear to go into shock. [75] Later, problems with sleep, mother-child bonding and breastfeeding, and increased sensitivity to stress and pain are all commonly seen after MGM. [76, 77, 78] To all appearances, the infant is left in a state of post-traumatic stress. Sometimes older boys have recurring flashbacks of their circumcision, a classic sign of PTS. Impaired bonding at this critical stage is well correlated with social dysfunction and even criminality later in life, [79], while breast feeding is known to have many health and psychological benefits for both the mother and the baby, [80, 81, 82, 67, 83] contrary to American medical doctrine of only a few years ago.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[MightyYar]

But those "facts" are all incidental. All that matters is: does infant circumcision hurt a child physically or emotionally in any lasting way? There does not seem to be anything showing that it does.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[jotok]

economic prosperity and theism are inversely related

Absolute bullshit and neoconservative propaganda.
Most of the major trading networks of the past 200 years have been run by "theists." Having them run by people who do simply care more for money than anything else is a fairly recent invention, historically.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[MightyYar]

You would probably have gotten more pleasure out of sex Maybe - but it's also possible that your brain compensates. But it's all speculation, isn't it? I certainly still find sex quite enjoyable.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[cheater512]

Oh I'm sure people think the same way about female genital mutilation.

The 'benefits' always sound like they were invented to try and make it sound alright.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[WhatAmIDoingHere]

The problem is that the choice is taken away from the person being mutilated. You never knew how it felt to have sex with your genitals intact, so you can't know what you're missing.

The problem is that circumcision is done because when the tradition started, people were filthy. Also, it helped keep the kids from playing with themselves.

Today neither of those points matter. We have antibacterial soap, and oppressing sexual feelings only hurts people in the long run. Let the kid grow up without being mutilated and let them make the choice.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[ultranova]

In a perfect world, our government would cut the spending on armament and give the decrease to the CAI to build schools.

Unfortunately, if the US did that, the fundamentalists would use that as an excuse to attack the schools for being in collaboration with the Great Satan.

That's the best long-term strategy to solving fundamentalism, IMO.

Ultimately, the only solution to fundamentalism is that the surrounding society deems it not acceptable. Education is essential in achieving this; however, it is by no means sufficient. It is perfectly possible to be well-educated and an evil fanatic.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[Tore S B]

Maybe - but it's also possible that your brain compensates. But it's all speculation, isn't it?

It really isn't. You've been pointed in other places in this discussions to documents describing this.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[The End Of Days]

Making money isn't the only thing that matters, but it facilitates nice things like food, shelter, clothing, and medical care that all do matter very much.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[Wonko the Sane]

Give me something to click.

Again, plenty of footnote to click on.

The long term psychological impact of birth-related trauma is also relevant to the issue of MGM. Recent studies have found striking connections between birth trauma and adult post traumatic stress and suicide, [93, 94, 95, 96, 75, 67, 78, 97] and adult victims of infant MGM often exhibit a spectrum of symptoms including: * a sense of personal powerlessness

        * lack of trust in others and life

        * a sense of vulnerability to violent attack by others

        * irrational rage reactions

        * addictions and dependencies

        * difficulties in establishing intimate relationships

        * decreased ability to communicate

        * emotional numbing

        * reluctance to be in relationships with women

        * anger and violence toward women [98]

Neurologically speaking, the life-long sexual sensory deprivation which results from circumcision has a profound effect on the neural organization of the brain, similar to that found in any amputee: corresponding neurons associated with states of sexual and emotional ecstasy die, and adjacent neural regions grow chaotically into the dead zone. [99] Furthermore, childhood victims of traumatic abuse tend to have a variety of brain abnormalities, reflecting a generalized rewiring of the brain to adapt to a hostile environment. [100] The psychological impact of such brain damage is likely to be far reaching.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[Skim123]

In a perfect world, our government would cut the spending on armament and give the decrease to the CAI to build schools.

Unfortunately, if the US did that, the fundamentalists would use that as an excuse to attack the schools for being in collaboration with the Great Satan.

FYI, the CAI - which has built over 50 schools in Pakistan and Afghanistan - was founded, and is primarily funded by - Americans. Granted, it's not funds from the US gov't, and I agree that there might be some distrust in such a case. But it's important to understand that many of these people don't fear or hate American citizens, but the American military machine.

That's the best long-term strategy to solving fundamentalism, IMO.

Ultimately, the only solution to fundamentalism is that the surrounding society deems it not acceptable. Education is essential in achieving this; however, it is by no means sufficient. It is perfectly possible to be well-educated and an evil fanatic.

Agreed. I didn't mean to imply that education was sufficient, but it's a hell of a lot more effective than our current strategy. For example, many Pakistani and Afghanis despised the Taliban. The US government had a helluva an opportunity to clean up the Taliban and really change the perception of America in Central Asia. But we screwed the pooch, IMO, with our "shock and awe" in Afghanistan, our single-minded focus on hunting Bin Laden (to the detriment of helping rebuild and modernize Afghanistan), and then our premature shift of focus to Iraq.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[cheater512]

Some people would say that you dont matter so lets remove you. :P

You probably think that female genital mutilation matters while other people dont.

What doesnt matter to you, matters to other people.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[rohan972]

I've seen a comment that perhaps people from religious groups that practice circumcision may be less likely than others to engage in behaviour that spreads HIV. So it may be cultural practice rather than actual circumcision that makes the difference.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[Cederic]

I was curious a couple of years ago about why it was still accepted, so did some research.

Turns out that circumcision does appear to have medical benefits in later life, including (but not limited to) reduced chance of catching HIV. To the extent that some people are recommending it as an aid to reducing the problems with HIV in Africa.

This thus puts the practice on more interesting ground, and not entirely dissimilar to a discussion on how to deal with child hermaphrodites (or whatever the current term is for such people) or even people with an extra toe (for instance). It ceases to be a purely religious decision and becomes a discussion of what's best for the child. Just happens that the child's parents are wrong ;)

Mutilating females however is done entirely and purely to deny sexual pleasure in adulthood and thus lacks any moral basis. Hence its illegality.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[@madeus]

So in other words, it's legal. I went out of my way to make the situation and my position clear, you've chosen to try and pick and argument, and be an ass about it.

In the UK, if I were to have a child of mine circumcised, not only would I find it hard most likely impossible to get the hospital to carry it out, but if I did find someone who was willing to carry it out privately as the child would neither be from a Jewish nor Muslim background it is quite clear I would be open for prosecution for assault, even if I didn't carry out the work myself. Which, while from my perspective is much less than ideal (as I still do not think the legislation is robust enough, as I have said), directly contrasts with the situation in the US where it is routinely carried out without any clinical or cultural justification (or even consideration).

If you'd been following the press reports and court rulings more carefully you might be better informed. You seem to be entirely, relying on Wikipedia to tell you everything you need to know on it and it's not covering the whole story. You don't even seem to be reading the Wikipedia article, which directly contradicts you (not me):

The only reference on Wikipedia article to a legal opinion - in the form of one published in the Journal of Medical Ethic by Fox and Thomson at Keele University's School of Law - states unequivocally that "there is no compelling legal authority for the common view that male circumcision is lawful." in the opening paragraph of the paper.

To provide a counter point, a representative from the General Medical Council stated that, in the opinion of the GMC, that it was an ethical issue not a legal one and that they do not believe that male circumcision on the UK is illegal. The GMC, however, are not a legal body and the statement was only the opinion of a representative from the standards committee (not a lawyer).

One might assume that having having the apparent backing of the GMC (who have published guidelines on the topic) would at least grant some level of legal protection for a licensed practitioner carrying out the procedure, but even I was (if only somewhat) surprised to hear that in the opinions of the legal professionals who were panelists on a BBC debate on the topic last year, that that was not the case and that relying on the GMC's published opinion would not be a valid case for defense. Of course they still have the power to have to have a doctor stuck off for breaking any guidelines which they do choose to set out, all of which is a little incongruous.

Which European country is 'more enlightened'? Off the top of my head? Finland and Germany have already ruled it's illegal without consent. As noted, in the UK the legislation also affords more protection than in the US (even if it is still incomplete).

Many European states are in a similar situation, not least because many have similar legislation in place (e.g. state specific legislation - such as the UK's Human Rights Act - and incorporating the European Convention on Human Rights). In the UK the HRA in particular has been a hot topic for a while and has already had a huge impact on health care here and is frequently noted as being relevant when the topic of male circumcision is discussed by medical practitioners and human rights lawyers.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[neuro88]

My father grew up religious as a child and because of that _hates_ organized religion as an adult. Due to problems (he was regularly getting infections under his foreskin that were very painful), he had to be circumcised at the age of 11, a very unpleasant experience to say the least. Because he did not want me to go through that same ordeal, he made sure I was circumcised when I was born. He was very clean (at least after the first infection), yet it still kept happening.

My girlfriend (who's been registered nurse for 5 years) has witnessed a lot of circumcisions on people even older than I am now (29) because of the same infections my father used to get. For some people they get infections under their foreskin no matter how clean they keep it.

Sure, it was done to me before I had a chance to make up my own mind, but I certainly don't think it was "barbaric" by any stretch.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[Cosmic AC]

There are several different types of fgm, so I wouldn't categorically say that it is worse. And I've never heard people who were opposed to fgm defending type I female circumcision. As long as male circumcision is so prevalent, I think a comparison is quite apt. Excising genital tissue for no good reason and without consent should not be tolerated no matter what its supposed "severity" is.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[vertinox]

Study after study has found no significant health benefits sufficient enough to warrant circumcision.

Health reasons aside there other benefits.

That said most girls that I have questioned on the topic with don't like the idea giving oral sex to men who are uncircumcised due to the fact most men are lazy and which they don't bother to clean the area wheras a circumsized person can be lazy and still not have as a big of a cleanliness issue down there.

Hence... If you date a girl and pull your pants down and expect oral sex they may go "Ewwwww!" when they see that you are not regardless of if you shower and scrub 3 times a day down there.

Of course this being Slashdot, talking about oral sex with girls maybe a moot point for most of everyone here.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[Cederic]

You don't miss it, so you reserve the right to mutilate your son?

Shit, in this entire discussion you haven't actually given a single good reason why you might want to do it to him.

There are some potentially good reasons for circumcision. "Because daddy is mutilated" is pretty fucking definitely not one of them.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[Wonko the Sane]

That's one advantage of marrying girls from countries where circumcision is not common.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[Cathoderoytube]

Don't you know that Islam has every right to oppress women and practice medieval style law enforcement?! If we question their beliefs we're being insensitive to their religion, regardless of how evil and backwards it is.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[kylebarbour]

People do not like to admit it about genocide, but if you do it thoroughly, then it actually works, i.e. solves all problems relating to the unpleasant minority, once and for all.

This is exactly the sort of disgusting selfishness that I see so often on Slashdot. No doubt the author of this post would be outraged at the suggestion that Muslims should come over and massacre atheists, converting other Americans to Islam, since non-Muslims are 'backwards' and need 'liberating' from their religious idiocy. And yet, these same people, often so-called Libertarians, who should at least believe in individual sovereignty and the right to choose one's own religion, are delighted to advocate murdering every Muslim on the planet. This is revolting.

The fact is, there are extremists in every religious camp there is, whether Islamic (Al-Qaeda), Christian (Falwell, Limbaugh, Coulter), Buddhist (Aum Shinrikyo), or atheist (Stalin), and there are wonderful, beautiful, compassionate people in all of them as well. Religious fundamentalism is simply not the problem - it's the symptom. Human nature allows for and produces bigotry and hatred, and anyone who thinks that eliminating religion will end fundamentalism is in for a shocker.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[Original Replica]

We really need to bring these people up to speed with the 21st century.

Pakistanis really need to bring Pakistan up to speed with the 21st century.
- Fixed that for you.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[hierofalcon]

Of the various recorded purposes for Christ's miracles in the New Testament - Making believers, fulfilling prophecy, demonstrating God's will, destroying the works of Satan, giving abundant life, confirming His sonship and messianic claims, confirming God's word and love, proving that God was with Him, demonstrating God's power over Satan, proving the kingdom of God was present, bringing glory to God, setting an example for all Gospel ministers, demonstrating the power of the Spirit baptism, and demonstrating full salvation for body, soul, and spirit, I see little place for God's performing a miracle as a sideshow antic as you would suggest.

Although I haven't personally seen body parts regrown, a person who had a blood clot mess up their foot badly had their foot healed just a few weeks ago at a service at our church with the help of prayer by ordinary folks. Don't mock what you haven't experienced.

That isn't a defense of the "faith healer" class. I don't think God is particularly happy with them as a group. But He is still doing His work - particularly when He gets the glory and not the person doing the work.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[sethstorm]

Yes it will take time to achieve any results, but economic prosperity and theism are inversely related, and theism in places like Pakistan is really fucked up and needs to be eliminated or at least marginalized. Explain 1980s televangelism, and the aftereffects of it.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[cain]

Yes I know, but religious people are a subset of theists. If you are religious you are by definition a theist. So if the subset is very large in the US, then the set itself is even larger. So my point stands: the United States is one of the most religious countries, yet it seems to be doing pretty well for itself economically.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[garett_spencley]

Most girls I talk to don't like kissing men with facial hair. Let's use invasive surgery to physically modify all of our male children so that they are no longer able to produce facial hair.

The other argument I hear all the time:

"It's cleaner" and/or "easier to clean".

Mothers all around the world have been having a hard time getting their young male children to clean behind their ears for centuries. I have a solution. Let's start removing male children's ear lobes at birth ...

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[bdjacobson]

We have to make excuses for giving a shit about what people do with their genitalia (or the genitalia of their kids). Unless you have an excuse, it's not any of your business.

Let me stretch this just a bit... "So what if I cut a piece of my kids' genitals? So what if I brutalize them? So what if I rape them? So what if I kill them? I can do whatever I want to them, and it's none of your damn business. They're mine! They're my property! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma
You're not really saying we're on a slippery slope are you?

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[OneoFamillion]

Hi! It is indeed true that a person should get a choice whether he is circumcised or not. With that being said, I was circumcised a few years ago in my mid-twenties, and I'm happy to say that it hasn't lessened the total amount of sexual pleasure I feel.

Okay, so I had to adjust my masturbation technique a little, but it's easier to keep clean now, and chicks dig the cleaner look, although research says that some women might find a need for added lubrication with a circumcised partner. I can only speak for myself of course, and I can understand that involuntary circumcision can leave a deep mental scar. With the mind being the powerful sexual organ it is, I consider it extremely important that involuntarily circumcised men should learn to accept their body the way it is. Trust me, unless you have good reason to think otherwise, your body remains a wonderful sexual instrument, and in my experience, its potential to give and receive pleasure is not impaired by the procedure.

For the more technically inclined, I'm of course not saying that the sensory input I receive is exactly the same as before. But even if it isn't, my brain has adjusted to the new input, and now regards it every bit as pleasurable as the old input, thank you very much ;)

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[Bazar]

A few points if i may.

You seem to agree that circumcision performed at birth is ineffective at preventing STDs, however seem to suggest that when performed as an adult it lowers the chance of infection.

Since there is no difference medically in circumcision as an adult or child, i can only assume that the effect is caused by social or mental changes. An indirect and physically unrelated result from circumcision. I'm unaware of how their social system works in Africa, so I'm skeptical if such actions taken in a first world nation would have any repeatable effect, epically when performed in a country where the women take it for granted.

Moving onto actual medical studies, reading from the CIRP, it suggests backed up with multiple reports, that those without foreskin suffered higher rates of STD and other various infections. The reason provided being that the skin removed coats the penis in an enzyme that attacks and destroys the cell walls of bacteria.

Another thing they talk about is how circumcised males have a more risky behavior, including lower usage of condoms (possibly due to the fact that they would have reduced penal sensitivity being further reduced by a jacket)...

It all sounds biased against circumcision, but regardless I'd suggest you take a read yourself:
http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/STD/

TLDR: The part they cut off helps keep the penis healthy and better protected, while circumcised men tend to take larger risks in their sexual activities including lower condom usage.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[@madeus]

There does seem to be some indication of a small number of potential benefits (in amongst some more clearly bogus correlations than are highlighted by practitioners in defense of the practice). However, the results seem biased by such fundamental principles as those who are circumcised for religious reasons are more likely to be strictly observant of a religion than your average test subject, and as a result I think it's fair to say less likely to lead a sexual lifestyle that is promiscuous / that puts them at a higher risk of infection.

Personally, having looked at the risk factors involved, I think it seems clear on inspection that the supposed benefits are at best incredibly marginal, and do not outweigh the clear harm done and the risks of the carrying out the process itself (although, where it's a common practice, such as in the US, it is at least less risky than it is elsewhere). I think the drive for medical justification is a case of Doctors who personally favor the practice for their own personal reasons, looking for hard medical evidence to support their stance (at best, because it fits in with their religion, at worst because it's a profitable practice).

Regarding HIV, I don't think having African men circumcised would have any positive impact on the spread of HIV in Africa. It seems like the sort of policy Thabo Mbeki would endorse (and would likely make things worse). I wouldn't be at all surprised to find he has in fact endorsed that approach at some point, but I'm too lazy to Google for it. 8)

In parting, I would note the benefits cited (e.g. apparent reduced risk of certain fairly uncommon infections) can typically be directly paralleled in females by removal of the labia majora, but that comparison is rarely made as society is more ready to immediately discount female genital mutilation as being unacceptable. To me, that fact on it's own provides a clear indicator that male genital mutilation is only seen as more acceptable practice purely because of an illogical cultural bias that society has so far failed to shake off.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[Lord Kano]

The US is a rather religious place and we make a shit-load of money here.

Some religious people are real fucktards, but the vast majority are decent people. The few douches out there don't negate the good of all the rest.

LK

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[mapkinase]

I am with you both on circumcision and moderation of your original comment.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[Khapar]

This does not have anything to do with blasphemy or religion. After all, Youtube was seen in Pakistan before unhindered. This ban has to do with appearance of videos documenting rigging in that country's recent elections. You could have found this out by spending a few minutes online but then again resisting our urges to bash anything non-western can be very hard for some of us.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[MightyYar]

They won't get off my lawn.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[MightyYar]

Since the lack of a foreskin undeniable desensitizes the glans, this is the net effect. I'm not sure how you'd even determine this in an infant, but the only studies I could find were about sexually active adults who had to get a circumcision.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[MightyYar]

Oh really? Someone pointed out a scientific study showing a link between sexual dysfunction and infant circumcision? That would be very interesting to me, because it would undermine the entire basis of my argument and I would have to change sides on the issue.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[Mike610544]

USians modded the parent
Can we stop with the "USian" thing already. The word "American" works fine; Nobody wonders if you're talking about Brazilians or Canadians (and I think they like it that way.)

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[palegray.net]

Develop a defensive military strategy, which should work just fine, as you are on your own frigging continent? The best defense is a good offense. That said, purely defensive strategies work great against relatively sane nations, not so great against militant dictatorships and maniacal theocracies with access to nuclear weapons.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[mapkinase]

Try first to trade with "anyone else", first, like China and Japan.

There is no "anyone else". Every country has its own protectionist anti-free trade tricks and laws.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[websitebroke]

I'm American, but I've spend quite a bit of time in Pakistan (mostly in rural Kashmir and a bit in Islamabad). People over there are very, very gung ho about getting their kids to learn to read. After the 2005 earthquake that flattened most of the homes in the area, the schools were one of the first things to be rebuilt. I got there in less than 2 months after the earthquake, and kids were already back in school. The system is a bit of a mess, and they have very little to work with as far as materials go, but they certainly are desperate to get educated.

Personally, I think we'd have a much better return on our investment if we took the money we're spending in Iraq and put it into building schools and providing learning materials in Pakistan, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Palestine. While we're at it, let's bring some of their young men and women over here to our colleges. Based on how many times I was asked about whether or not it's hard to go to school in the USA, I bet they'd jump at the chance.

The only time I saw a Qu'ran while I was over there was when I visited a Mosque. People there read pretty much the same sorts things we do.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[Jarik_Tentsu]

But let's see it from their point of view.

Hypothetically, imagine for a second, their religion is *real* as well as all their practices concerning it.

Imagine if, by getting brought up to speed with the '21st century', they pissed off their God and suffered for it. Wouldn't it be stupid to do so then?

From their logic, what they're doing isn't stupid or closed-minded, but a very smart and logical decision from their beliefs. That's what makes it hard.

~Jarik

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[Tore S B]

The skin gets thicker and loses sensitivity on the glans if it's constantly rubbed against underwear. I don't see how this is possible to deny. If I were to walk around a day with an exposed glans, it'd probably be extremely uncomfortable. So you necessarily have to lose something from it.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[MightyYar]

What doesnt matter to you, matters to other people. I get that, and I understand. But just because something matters to you personally doesn't mean you should go out and actively try to prevent others from doing it. It would be one thing if they had some real scientific evidence behind them, but they don't so they try to horrify you with nasty pictures and misused statistics.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[notwrong]

...economic prosperity and theism are inversely related...

This is false. The United States is one of the most religious countries, yet it seems to be doing pretty well for itself economically.

The existence of a single country that is both highly religious and economically successful does not necessarily mean that the inverse relationship does not hold overall. It could be an outlier.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[maz2331]

Why waste three weeks when we can use subs to deliver Domino's nukes -- thirty minutes or less or they are free? One sub carries enough warheads to do the job, and two can basically make the whole country's popluated areas into the world's biggest parking lot.

Or better yet... rather than dropping meteors or nukes on anyone, how about just cutting their 'net cables?

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[maz2331]

Or even better, liberate them from oil money by developing our own engergy sources. Then these third-world deserts can become what third-world deserts always have been...

Irrelevant.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[TapeCutter]

"...religious people are a subset of theists. If you are religious you are by definition a theist."

No - theists are a subset of religious people.

Theist belive in one God. The main theist religions are Islam, Christianity and Judaisim all of who happen to belive in the same God. The Christian claim that the prophet Jesus was God's son tends to irrate the non-christian theists.

Polytheists belive in many gods - Hinduisim for example, polytheisim is the oldest form of religion.

Atheists belive in no gods at all and are often evangelical about that belief. Put a bunch of them in a room together and you have a religion without gods.

I'm not sure what the term is for someone who admits they don't know or care. Disinterested agnostic maybe?

I do agree the US is a Christian nation in all but law, however Saudi Arabia vs N. Korea would be a better example for your point.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[thelexx]

Thing that bothers me with what your saying, and I'm really just throwing this out for discussion, is that it would seem there have to be _some_ shared beliefs, morals, values or whatever for a nation to be able to hold together in the long run. That there has to be some solid ground, a definition of core principles, beyond which no encroachment can be tolerated and on which action can be taken. A US senator recently proposed mandatory volunteer civil service work or no H.S. diploma. Does that cross the line of treason on purely ideological grounds? Denying one proof of education if they don't submit to state service? Has the ring of the kind of policy a communist, fascist or third-rate dictator would employ. Better education would hopefully get more people voting (intelligently, HAH, one can dream) and then maybe hairbrains like that won't be able to make it in or stay in once their crazy comes out. Don't really see any other way out at this point since so few in office seem to have any real principles anymore (beyond just not stealing or grossly abusing their power). :(

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[NiteShaed]

Slow down there cowboy....I realize that it looks pretty cool linking to a paper hosted at a university, but this website was written by a systems analyst that works in the math sciences department at the university. Whether you intended to or not, this looks like you were citing a paper prepared by an authoritative source, not a guy who's hobby is leading a charge against the practice of circumcision. If there's such a wealth of information available to support your argument, you should have not trouble finding something from the medical profession, or can Yar refute this with a paragraph written on a napkin by his local mechanic?

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[fbjon]

Actually, the problem that I have with this is that no one has show impairment of sexual function in adults that were circumcised as infants. The first problem is that infants don't have sex, one should hope, so kinda hard to get good self-reported comparison data on this from the source, so to speak. But lets try to get something anyway. A search on PubMed gives some hits, here's a couple of choice quotes from summaries (I don't have access to full articles right now):

• "A survey of the 35 female and 42 gay sexual partners of circumcised and genitally intact men, and a separate survey of 53 circumcised and 30 genitally intact men themselves, indicated that circumcised men experienced significantly reduced sexual sensation along with associated long-lasting negative emotional consequences."; Adverse sexual and psychological effects of male infant circumcision. Boyle GJ, Bensley GA
• "We found no relationship between childhood circumcision age and overall sexual function; however some specific domains of sexual function (i.e. avoidance and communication) seemed to be affected by the age at circumcision procedure in this cohort of sexually active males. In addition, prevalence of sexual dysfunction was higher, with premature ejaculation being the most common dysfunction in the survey. We concluded that childhood circumcision age might affect some domains of male sexual function in adulthood, but not the overall function."; Effects of childhood circumcision age on adult male sexual functions. Aydur E et al.

People in the US seem to be having plenty of sex, and seem to be happy with it. Right, this is the point where you might hear arguments like "you don't know what you're missing", not to mention that "seem to be happy with it" is a pretty vague statement.

Also, you say in a post further down:

All that matters is: does infant circumcision hurt a child physically or emotionally in any lasting way? There does not seem to be anything showing that it does. Try these for starters:

• The psychological impact of circumcision; R. Goldman 1999
• Physical, sexual, and psychological effects of male infant circumcision: an exploratory survey; GA Bensley, GJ Boyle 2001

Excecutive summary: neonatal circumcision hurts the kids.

And finally, although circumcised men have lower risk for some infections and penile cancer, WHO states that "some of these conditions are rare while others are uncommon or treatable, and routine neonatal circumcision is not currently recommended on medical grounds". Promoting circumcision is being considered by the WHO as a way of reducing the risk of HIV infections in countries in a particularly dire state, like South Africa. But again, it only reduces the risk, and does not in any way replace the use of condoms. Also, studies are still ongoing on this.

So there. Was there anything unclear?

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[fbjon]

For those who have boys as kids and they have too narrow a foreskin: do something about it before they reach puberty. There is no fund in having stiches and waking up with a woody (and unable to do anything about it for several weeks) That's phimosis, but circumcision is not the only treatment for it. Depending on the degree, varying amounts of foreskin can be cut away, not just the whole shebang, and in many cases, simple stretching of the skin will do the trick.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[MightyYar]

Okay, so I go through this article... which, by the way, is very much propaganda and not anything that could be considered for a scientific publication... and I just don't see how these dots get connected. Perhaps this is because it is written by a systems analyst and not someone in the field.

The first string of citations:

• 67 - Nothing really groundbreaking - though maybe it was in 1989 when it was published. Not really a scientific work, but still interesting. "It is a major thesis of this presentation that male circumcision is not primarily a medical issue but rather has its roots in deeply held religious beliefs and social customs that defy rational and humane understanding."
• 75 - Interesting, but backs me up: "Questions concerning the psychological motivation to circumcise and the longstanding psychological effects of male circumcision have rarely been studied; this lack of studies on the long term effects was noted in the medical literature about 20 years ago [2,3], and little has changed since then." It also contains this gem (which explains the bizarre reference 97, which I cover below): "Without published studies, current knowledge of men's feelings about their circumcision is generally based on reports from self-selected men who have contacted the Circumcision Resource Center (CRC) and other circumcision information organizations [44]."
• 78 - Not a study but a review of literature. "Much more research is needed before we can fully understand the psychologic and social consequences of this traumatic life event." Well, I agree!
• 93 - a Swedish study linking BIRTH TRAUMA to violent suicide, as well as a link between adult substance abuse and the use of opiates during delivery. I suppose the author of your piece is comparing circumcision to birth trauma - but it should be readily apparent to you why this is flawed. Birth trauma is not limited to pain. Oxygen levels can dip low and the fetal heart rate can slow way down. It is conceivable that brain damage occurs during birth trauma.
• 94 - actually a citation of a review of literature, itself citing two other papers. The first one states in the summary "We recommend treatment to prevent neonatal circumcision pain." The second one states in its summary "These data support the use of DPNB during anesthesia for routine neonatal circumcisions still requested by the majority of parents in the country." The conclusion is that circumcision is painful and so anesthetic should be used.
• 95 - Pretty much a repeat of study 93, but this time done with siblings instead of a random control group. Again, birth trauma - not a mention of circumcision.
• 96 - another study, actually referencing some of these other studies, which makes no recommendations but does tie circumcision pain to birth trauma pain.
• 97 - very hard to read with a straight face. On a site called "no harmm". Yet it did get published, so I'll choke on it. It's a survey of adults, and quite a survey it is! "Half of the respondents documented using nonsurgical uncircumcision methods described by Bigelow." So this survey is not so random, as 50% of the respondents are trying to undo their circumcision! 50% of the overall population is NOT using circumcision methods. Weird, weird stuff.
• 98 - Quack, quack, goes the duck - or in this case the nutty psychiatrist. "In my client population of adult men, serious and sometimes disabling lifelong consequences appear to have resulted from this procedure, and long-term psychotherapy focusing on early trauma resolution appears to be effective in dealing with these consequences. The author "is a practicing psychiatrist and psychotherapist and director of Deep Brook Center, a holistic center for innovative psychotherapies and nutrition in Newtown, Connecticut." Oh, brother.
• 99 - A "reference" to a list of references that is prefaced with: "Although we know of no research specific to circumcision trauma causing brain damage, we include some of the related research that is applicable."
• 100 - No me

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[MightyYar]

Please see the other reply, where I cover what is wrong with many of these references (or rather, how they are used). Basically, most of this quoted passage is covered if you simply use some anesthetic.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[ggvaidya]

We really need to bring these people up to speed with the 21st century. What's the best way to do it? Three weeks of heavy meteorite bombardment followed by moving in a new population of sane people. It's the only way to be sure.

(Joking aside, I sincerely hope parent was making dark humour without any actual intention of supporting genocide)

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[MightyYar]

I don't know what to tell you - I like my sex and so do all of us circumcised US males. Maybe it could be better, but I can't say that bothers me since it is so good.

I'm going to insist on some sort of science before I join the anti-circumcision chorus in this thread. It's a 6000+ year old tradition that I'm not going to get riled up about unless there is some scientific evidence of its harm. There are plenty of childhood ills that rank way higher right now.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[Lunzo]

What the Hell?

The discussion was on circumcision and you start spreading misinformation about condoms not working? They worked fine for me and I'm not circumcised. In fact condoms are one of the two forms of contraception with a 100% success rate, and the only way of preventing the spread of STIs.

As for Extra Large size, I'd wager that you use normal size at best. The vast majority of men use normal size. XL is just marketing.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[__aapspi39]

I just think it's a bit funny (and convenient) how faith-healers always tend to 'cure' conditions that may well have gone away of their own accord.

If you think that "demonstrating the power of the Spirit baptism' has the persuasive power of a re-grown leg then that's fair enough - clearly i need to work on my faith.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[@madeus]

Well, the General Medical Council don't say it's illegal, but the only legal commentary published on it in Journal of Medical Ethics disagrees with you (except in the very rare-to-non-existent cases where there might be medical grounds, of course). Needless to say this is one reason why shysters try so hard to find clinical justification for carrying out the process.

Although it's carried out in practice by both Jewish and Muslim parents in the UK (and judges have refused to grant an order banning it under the guise of it hypothetically "being in the best interest of a child" based on a rather contrived scenario) that's a not the same thing as it being ruled as being normal legal practice. HRA lawyers who have been warning about this for years.

What has yet to happen is for someone to go to court and for it to ruled under appeal as being a breech of the HRA (although it could also be ruled as incompatible with the ECHR in the Lords, even if the appeal failed). IIRC an appeal was on the cards in the 2005 case, but it in the end the prosecution didn't appeal (much to the disappointment of HRA lawyers). The judge in that case (where the verdict on the father of "not guilty" of assault was returned by a jury majority verdict) never the less warned people not to misinterpret the ruling in the trial by jury case.

Just because people do it and are not challenged on it doesn't mean it's legal. A child of 11 could still legally object to procedure, or parents who had it carried out be later prosecuted after the fact (for example, in the admittedly unlikely event the child later rejects their parents faith).

It is also of note (something that NORM-UK like to point out) that the UK is a signatory to UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, under which any violent act towards a child is not permitted even on grounds of "religion, culture or tradition", and it is acknowledged in the UK that it is not clinically beneficial on it's own merits and so does NOT constitute legitimate surgery . The UK has ratified the the convention and is bound by it under international law. This actually impacts all UN signatories to it (which is all 192 members of the UN, apart from ... the Somalia and err the USA who have not signed up to it), so it has a wider remit.

It is accurate is that there is no UK specific legislation which explicitly makes it clear male genital mutilation illegal under all circumstances (in the same mold as The Prohibition of Female Circumcision Act 1995), but legal human rights experts do disagree with you that it's legal because the 'accepted practice' conflicts withe the HRA & ECHR (never mind the UNCRC).

The only reason it continues to be practiced as it was prior to 1998 is because it has not been tried in court (even if the UK then amended the HRA legislation, the Lords would still be able to rule the HRA was then a breach of the ECHR, which the UK is governed by and doesn't have the power to amend) and the GMC and RCS. The GMC and RCS are the bodies the government have cravenly left to decide the matter - declaring it was a legal issue for bodies who represent medical and surgical practitioners to address, even though it's not legally within the GMC's or the RCS's power to legislate (they can define best practice, and have you struck off if they don't think your conduct meets appropriate standards, but as they do not have the power to decided what constitutes criminal behavior).

The cop out of deferring to the GMC and RCS was the governments way of say "we don't want to touch this with a 10 foot pole or we will have people rioting in the streets". The GMC and RCS have in turn both been towing the "well no one in the government told us it was explicitly illegal" line - which is clearly circular logic.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[ggvaidya]

Unfortunately, if the US did that, the fundamentalists would use that as an excuse to attack the schools for being in collaboration with the Great Satan. True, but you guys supported about half-a-dozen* proxy wars with the Soviets without actively being involved. Sneaking money into the country via the UN, through good offices in countries which are friendly to Pakistan (I guess China would be too much to hope for?), sponsoring college education for underprivileged students and teachers or smuggling books into the country might help.

Ultimately, the only solution to fundamentalism is that the surrounding society deems it not acceptable. Education is essential in achieving this; however, it is by no means sufficient. It is perfectly possible to be well-educated and an evil fanatic. Again, true; although I'd guess that most* well-educated and non-"evil" (what a funny word) people have better and more profitable things to do than plan attacks on army bases and Pres. Musharraf. Certainly, many extremely smart and well-educated people have joined terrorist outfits; however, having other avenues for your intelligence definitely helps. I can't imagine the Muslims I know personally (most of whom were offended by the cartoons of Prophet Mohammed) protesting peacefully, let alone burn downing embassies. They're more likely to complain about it a bit and move on.

I think the danger in slipping into fundamentalism lies in two areas: firstly, the ability of leaders to cajole and the propensity of the affected and aggrieved to take their anger out on either the offenders or completely helpless bystanders (examples range from violence which erupted in Kenya's rift valley last week, to the riots in Bangalore caused by - of all things - the perfectly natural death of an aging movie star), and secondly, the vast majority of people who would just like to get on with what they're doing, and are perfectly willing to grant to the affected and aggrieved mentioned above any seemingly small concession in order to calm their anger. Yes, let's ban this book, ban that film, you can see their point, their favourite movie star died and nobody seemed to care, and so on. This, I feel, only drives them into the hands of the leaders mentioned above, who can triumphantly claim that violence is the only way in which the minority can have its grievances addressed. Before you know it, things have escalated to Godhra.

What's the way out? I don't know, but I guess ensuring that the aggrieved have a soap box to make their grievances heard, having a strong constitution reinforced by a strong judiciary which ensures that the rights to free speech and personal liberty remain enforced, and better mobility within society to ensure that the most wretched have as much of a chance at success as do the richest might help. How that comes about is beyond me, and it's probably too early on a Monday to try and figure that out :).

* Warning, bogus number.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[Blkdeath]

Circumcision removes the most sensitive part of the penis Why does this matter?

Do us a favour; go have sex then see if you still want to ask this question.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[Pax681]

well a very reasoned argument was given by Penn and Teller is Series three episode one of bullshit! if you can get hold of it was. they give , as i said, a VERY reasoned argument against this brutal practise. one doctor tells of how an infant child nervous system is "hyper developed" and thus they feel the PAIN MORE ACUTELY! it's brutal, barbaric and has no place in a modern, enlightened society (unless done for s specific medical reason) in fact if you get VeohTV you vcan get it or you can download it from http://tinyurl.com/2fkldw now come back to me after watching this piece of EXTREMELY WELL RESEARCHED anti circumcision program. in your face as they say! strange that even though you haven't got a complete prick you are indeed a complete prick! i for one wopuld NEVER even think of considering doing this to my son!

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[aszaidi]

Many people there, if they read at all, read religious texts only.

Now now. I wouldn't go so far as to call Slashdot a religious text.

That's your problem. If they had a wider experience in the written word, they wouldn't be so easily led by Clerics with an agenda.

Regarding the clerics (as well as politicians, warlords, industrialists), the people they manipulate usually can't read at all, let alone religious texts and it's this majority which needs to be educated. The official literacy rate is pathetically low to start with, yet the criteria for being counted as "literate" is the simple ability to write (or draw) your own name.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[Pax681]

Also if the veoh link won't work then this one will. it will be active for 12 hours from posting. http://www.pax681.co.nr/ you'll find it there and it does work.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[Deanalator]

What the hell is wrong with everyone?

Pakistan is not some barbarian super religious country living in the dark ages. Yes, Pakistan was for a long time ruled by an oppressive religious party, but just in the past few days they have been voted out of power. Yes there are many supporters of the old ways, but a VAST majority of people in the country want to move forwards and join the world.

Maybe I am a bit tired, but this whole thread feels surreal to me. Half of the thread is way off topic talking about how awesome it would be if circumcision was outlawed, and the other half is perpetuating racist and highly offensive stereotypes. Did the GNAA just get massive modpoints or something? Is this some sort of joke? This whole thread is just highly disturbing to me.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[dcam]

How did this go from Pakistan to a discussion on circumcision?

Slashdot: using the power of non sequiturs to bring you rants on pet topics!

Coming soon:
* Satelite shootdown -> Vista sucks
* Distributed File systems -> censorship is evil
* any article -> Ron Paul (please ensure you mention how he was shafted and raised more money that one day than any other candidate)

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[hullabalucination]

I have pretty good reasons for doubting polls that purport to show that regular religious observance is much over 25% of the U.S. population:

http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=237

The methodology in your poll is pretty flawed to begin with. Just asking folks "Do you go to church?" will bring an avalanche of false positives because many people will respond with an idealized answer rather than the cold, hard truth.

Incidentally, try talking to church leaders about "48% US church attendance" and you'll find lots of skepticism about that figure from folks who are in a position to have fairly authoritative opinions on the topic.

My former residence, Dallas, was called the "most Christian large city in North America" in a fascinating BBC documentary on religion in America back in the 80's. This was based on the churches-per-population stats. I believe it was the same program which also pointed out that Dallas also had the highest ratio of adult businesses (topless clubs, porn shops) to population. And, bitingly, it also pointed out that the Day of Worship was the "most segregated day of the week in America." Which is absolutely true. We can all work together, eat together, play together, but don't let an African-American try to get a pew in the white Baptist church across the street from me. God forbid. Our real best efforts at morality shine in our secular society, not in our religious institutions, unfortunately.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[Tore S B]

Removing YouTube and the clitoris comes from the same problem: Religious mania.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[Nullav]

Ok, I'm really stepping out of my comfort zone in this argument, but do you really need to put in any effort to avoid slashing at a kid's wang? If there's no difference, just save that shit for plastic surgeons.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[Cederic]

Some people think being a Catholic priest is a good reason to molest young boys and that it causes no real harm. You think we shouldn't stop them either?

This whole thread arose from a discussion on female genital mutilation. This is also a time honoured tradition, and rather than real harm, a lot of people believe it has a benefit to society. You think we shouldn't stop them?

There _are_ good reasons for male circumcision. 6000 years of religious bullshit is not one of them.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[Cederic]

Interesting parting point. Maybe I'll write to my MP after all, requesting that male genital mutilation be made illegal on the grounds of abuse.

Any medical benefits can still be gained through adult circumcision should the individual so choose, so it's still very much an option.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[wamerocity]

Just out of curiosity, how do you have a double-blind study with circumcision? I mean the point of a double-blind is to ensure that the person who administers and the person who receives some sort of treatment doesn't know whether they are receiving it or not, to eliminate the placebo effect. How on earth can you hide the fact that somebody received a circumcision? I suppose you could create a fake helmet and glue it on... or something...

Sorry to be pedantic, but the concept seems funny to me. I do agree with you that circumcision is a complete non-issue compared to everything else that affects a child's life.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[a1opus]

First we have to see that what are the benefits of these type of sites? You list the advantages and I will list the disadvantages, lets see which list will be critical? In short, everybody knows that media is creating opinion among people, not people's opinion but their own opinion what they are directed to create. I am in favor which content will create unrest anywhere in the world, it must be banned. There was a time when aljazeera's website and some other websites were banned by US, why? Why many developed countries keep chatting, phone calls, websites, etc under surveillance? It is not a matter of illiteracy but politics only.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[EveLibertine]

[quote]So... why is [i]male[/i] genital mutilation still acceptable in the USA?[/quote] What the fuck is this non sequitur? Off-topic much?

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[EasyTarget]

Go pester parents that aren't feeding their children properly or don't help them with their homework.

You misunderstand, they'll be pestered too! just like those who genitally mutilate their kids.

I think anybody who're response such mutilation is 'why does this matter?' should really be reported to the child protection agencies.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[mdwh2]

Proper nutrition is essential in your formative years. Your stunted brain development can't be reversed.

Malnutrition and stunting brain development I would consider should be illegal too.

The point is that there is no demonstrated effect on someone who receives a male circumcision - good or bad.

Except for the fact that they no longer have a heathly part of their body. It would be assault if I forcably did that to you, why is it okay for babies?

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[mdwh2]

How does this pinky thing keep coming up? NO ONE CUTS OFF THEIR PINKY!

It keeps coming up because it's another example of something which doesn't cause significant harm. So why is one okay, but not the other?

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[MightyYar]

Lots of Americans have sex. Lots of Americans like their sex just fine. Most of us are circumcised. Do you have a scientific study showing that we like sex less than uncircumcised folks or are you just being flippant?

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[MightyYar]

I've seen that, and it is more balanced than you describe.

By the way, it is a comedy show.

As for your choice with your son - I'm glad you have the choice, but unless you have some science to back you up I hope you don't take the choice away from others.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[MightyYar]

Personally I agree with you - I just don't see why these folks are in such a lather over what OTHER people are doing to their kids. Especially for something that hasn't been shown to matter! There are other, more pressing problems that kids have with their upbringing.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[MightyYar]

Some people think being a Catholic priest is a good reason to molest young boys and that it causes no real harm. Those people have a body of scientific research directly contradicting them.

This whole thread arose from a discussion on female genital mutilation. This is also a time honoured tradition, and rather than real harm, a lot of people believe it has a benefit to society. Those people have a body of scientific research directly contradicting them.

There _are_ good reasons for male circumcision. 6000 years of religious bullshit is not one of them. See, that's your opinion and there is no science behind it, so it shouldn't be pushed on others. I happen to thing being Jewish is a perfectly fine reason to get a circumcision.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[jabster]

there are extremists in every religious camp there is, whether Islamic (Al-Qaeda), Christian (Falwell, Limbaugh, Coulter), Buddhist (Aum Shinrikyo), or atheist (Stalin)

Um, yeah.....cause we constantly hear Falwell, Rush, and Coulter telling their "followers" to go out and kill in name of God & Christ. And look at how many millions are killed each year by Ditto-Heads!

Even assuming that those three are "extreme," don't you think there's just a wee bit o' difference between Falwell preaching for Jesus and Bin Laden telling his followers to strap bombs to themselves and kill innocent women and children?

I am certain your answer is no.

Anybody who lumps Falwell, Rush, and Coulter in with a bunch of mass murderers is obviously a bit lacking in rational thought.

-john

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[hesaigo999ca]

Hate to be the bringer of bad news, aside from the fact that it sounds you condone genocide, in this instance bringing democracy to these people would not work, as their government wants to keep them stupid, easier to manipulate, else they would have to spend so much of their oil profits to start creating infrastructures and quelling the masses, where as now they just don't do anything about anything for anyone.

Also, their culture is backwards (any culture condoning setting your wife on fire for ASSUMING she cheated on you with no proof and walking away legally without a scratch), so for them to even see your light ( the error of their ways ) is ludicrous as they have been brainwashed all their lives by their parents, and those parents before, that this is the way of life.... and don't challenge it etc...

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[Pax681]

holy christ on a fucking bike! it's a wee bit more than a comedy show! it's a show that debunks MYTHS and does so ina humerous fashion. they have a crack research team, they present their show with a humerous twist to that people swallow the fact they have been DUPED a tad easier. to describe it a merely a comedy show shows that you are either only takign this stance to get a reactionor that you are legendarily obtuse! It's a DEBUNKING SHOW.. you knwo, debunking myths......... and from what you say you just don't get that... LOOK at the people and the organisations quoted in it!???? and then you go on to say "i hope you don't take the choice away from others" FUCKADOODLEDO!!!!! WHAT CHOICE ARE YOU GIVING INFANT CHILDREN WHEN YOU ARE MUTILATING THEIR GENITALS????????????

Penn & Teller finally give skeptics a no-holds-barred series that debunks, educates and entertains. Perry DeAngelis The New England Journal of Skepticism, Volume 6 Issue 1 5/1/2003 Showtime, Fridays at 11 PM is now "Don't Miss TV" for the skeptically-hearted. It is a debunker's paradise of exposure and explanation. The irrepressible Penn Jillette and "silent-in-performance" Teller have a new series thereupon called "Penn & Teller: Bullshit." This rather catchy title was not chosen for shock purposes, but for legal ones. As Penn explains in the initial show, calling con artists frauds or the like will keep you in litigation for your natural life. However, "oddly," as Penn puts it, calling them bullshit artists is pretty legally safe. Ah, the foibles of the slander laws. Showtime being a premium cable service means profanity is not a problem, and Penn spews a heap of it, all directed at the snake oilists the team eviscerates. At 30 minutes in length, the show takes on either one or two topics per episode. The standard format of the series is to begin with Penn & Teller on a prop minimal set (except for their oversized stylized ampersand) wherein Penn eludes to the evening's theme, with Teller pantomiming in the background. After this brief opening, credits roll, and the show goes to its crew in the field. When it's a two-topic show, approximately half way through an attempt at segue is made, and the latter theme commences. Each sequence follows more or less the same format of showing some gullible purveyor(s) at their task, then clipping in an introduction with their name and occupation or interest. An evidence-based person(s) in the field follows this. All of these experts on either side of the question are listed individually on the shows website, with links to their own websites. Finally the show will often try the most extreme examples of the topic at hand on common folk, to demonstrate that people can believe in almost anything if packaged well. In a segment from their "Alternative Medicine" show, destined for the Radio & Television Hall of Fame, a guy in a lab coat placed in a mall gets people to allow him to apply a snail mucous treatment to their faces, in an attempt to alleviate wrinkles. The scene of these people with the snails crawling across their mugs, and then admiring their snot smeared faces in a mirror, is priceless. Penn's voice-over during these segments is pervasive. He both narrates and comments on what is being said and shown. It ranges from a calm explanation of the scene, to a vulgar exclamation about the racket on screen. Yet, remember that calling someone a "fu*king assh*le" rather then a lying scam artist keeps the lawyers at bay. Thus, this sometimes heavy-handed way of Penn's expressing the duos passion about a particular subject must be seen through that filter. The NESS accepts that the vulgarity would not be utilized if it were not necessary. Skeptics must be ever vigilant of being made to don the suit of law. A pleasant side note for skeptics in the know is that all three of the national skeptical organizations have been tapped for the show. Thus far Joe Nickel has appeared from CSICOP, James Randi from JREF and Michael Shermer from the Skeptics Society. No bickering is being to

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[hierofalcon]

I agree. That's why I think the TV or radio faith healers have a tendency to give Christianity a bad name. Perhaps these posts I'm making do too, but I took my homepage link off to try to ensure there wouldn't be any stink of getting something for making the comments I'm making, even though I don't think there are any buried links there to the church I'm now attending.

I'll give another example. A person I work with was having chest pain. He went to the hospital and was flown to SLC for more help the next day. The doctors there decided he was going to need a heart transplant instead. He doesn't go to church much, didn't ask me for prayer, and didn't (as far as I know) know our church was praying for him. Our church (and others) did anyway. God didn't heal his heart so he could avoid the transplant, but he did get a transplant in the primary window of time, got a heart that the doctors said was an amazing match (the new 19-year old heart had been exposed to the same chemicals, etc as the original), and he made progress that was above and beyond what the doctors had seen before and was able to come back to work in 2 months - the best they'd ever had. God's hand, or not?

Another lady I personally know had had an X-ray taken of her chest because she wasn't feeling well. The doctors diagnosed lung cancer. She was prayed for and went back to the doctor the next day since she was feeling better. A second X-ray showed her lungs clear. God at work, or no?

The thing is, there are always people in EVERY religion that give that religion a bad name. Christianity and Islam are alike in that one sad respect. There is an aspect of faith that is involved in believing every reported miracle - especially ones that you didn't witness firsthand or that are reported on the religious news sites.

One of the downsides of the health care system is that it is very expensive to back up miracles so most people just go on about their way when they are healed and never get the documentation that the world wants to see. The world doesn't have faith in God.

I do think that if God got more of the glory for the miracles that He did do, and if it was effectively used for evangelism, there might be more and greater miracles done today. As it is, why should He bother? I hope you find your faith and that you never have to count on a miracle firsthand.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[MightyYar]

So...don't fix it if it ain't broke? I like your mind, simple, and easy to understand. I always love when people attack me instead of my argument. Builds character.

If you had the opportunity to give your son the ability to enjoy sex even more, would you? My, that IS a simple question. Sure, I'd do that!

But oh, wait - there's no study linking infant circumcision to the inability to enjoy sex.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[MightyYar]

You are right I think. I mentioned double-blind because one of the anti-circumcision propaganda sites was criticizing some studies that showed an STD advantage by saying they weren't double-blind...

But hell, I'd settle for ANY kind of rigorous scientific study.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

So it's illegal to do it in the UK unless the child is Muslim or Jewish?

I.e. moral relavatism rears it's ugly, ugly head. QED

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[BlueStraggler]

People do not like to admit it about genocide, but if you do it thoroughly, then it actually works

For them, maybe. But its knock you back into the 11th Century, and the world is right back where it started.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Very well then. Consenting adults can get circumcised if they wish.

Please leave the non-consenting babies out of it, thx bie.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

+1 hundred trillion, Insightful

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Circumcision removes the most sensitive part of the penis

Why does this matter?

Hold still while I slap you.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[roguetrick]

US citizens don't read that many books. We're not doing great, but we're not quite THAT bad yet. Reading certainly isn't a bad thing, but I doubt it would solve this problem.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[The One and Only]

NO. You have the right to your own beliefs. You start to acquire fascist-like tendencies when you foist your beliefs onto others. Come at me with facts, not ideology.

Unless you seriously support anarchism, we have to foist some of our beliefs on others. That's what stops me from saying "I think it's perfectly acceptable to kill my wife for adultery, and if you disagree, nuts to you!" It's not at all fascist to get all up in someone's grill for violating the rights of innocent people. What's fascist is violating the rights of innocent people.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[The One and Only]

In my experience, most women are fascinated by an intact penis if they hadn't seen one before. Other women regard it as no big deal. I personally think it looks pretty neat with the foreskin, but if I ever want to look at it the other way I can engage in the perfectly non-destructive act of rolling the foreskin back.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[The One and Only]

Contrary to the typical medical brochure would have you believe, condoms simply "don't work" for the uncircumsized. And they work even less well for those of who need the ... Xtra Large size.

Have you tried rolling back the foreskin? I used to have the same problem.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[The One and Only]

In fact condoms are one of the two forms of contraception with a 100% success rate, and the only way of preventing the spread of STIs.

Condoms can break. The stress tolerances of latex are finite, and no matter how many nines you'll get in ideal circumstances, even then you'll have some breakage.

As for Extra Large size, I'd wager that you use normal size at best. The vast majority of men use normal size. XL is just marketing.

Normal size is too small for some men. There is a difference between normal sizes and larger sizes, and even between different condom brands, and for someone of wider-than-average girth, the larger condoms do fit better. I would wager you're just speaking outside your personal experience, and that the post you're replying to was trolling maybe a little.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[MightyYar]

They'll be pestered too! Maybe "pester" is the wrong word. These seemingly "rational" guys on here want to enact laws forbidding circumcision. Are you going to pass a law mandating people feed their children your acceptable diet? Make criminals out of vegans (or non-vegans if you prefer...)? Are you going to make it a crime to not help your kid with his school work? What if the parent decides to home school and you don't like the curriculum?

I still maintain that if you are going to pass a law, it damn well better be backed up by something other than your distaste.

I think anybody who're response such mutilation is 'why does this matter?' should really be reported to the child protection agencies. So you want child protection agencies to take away most of the people in the US? Because most of us are circumcised.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[MightyYar]

Malnutrition and stunting brain development I would consider should be illegal too. Great! How are you going to enforce that?

It would be assault if I forcably did that to you, why is it okay for babies? Because society has decided that it is not "assault" or "mutilation", but instead something called "circumcision". Just because it is distasteful to you does not mean everyone shares your opinion.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[vyrus128]

I like my sex and so do all of us circumcised US males. Speak for yourself, asshole.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[Taevin]

You're deliberately ignoring arguments left and right to support your view. For example:

If you had the opportunity to give your son the ability to enjoy sex even more, would you?

My, that IS a simple question. Sure, I'd do that! But oh, wait - there's no study linking infant circumcision to the inability to enjoy sex.

Note the emphasis. The AC was not saying that infant circumcision (or any age for that matter) prevents one from enjoying sex. Not being circumcised, however, allows one to enjoy sex even more. You've already said that given the choice to provide your son with a more enjoyable sex life you would take it, thus I recommend that you do not circumcise any of your children.

Of course I'm sure you're going to turn right around and say that there is no evidence that uncircumcised males can enjoy sex more, so I'll head that argument off with some supporting evidence. For the record, I'm quite aware that I'll never convince you of the truth of this matter; you're already fully convinced that a tradition of butchering our sons' penises is a valid one simply because it is a tradition. As such, the following arguments against circumcision are rather targeted at others who have not decided or are simply uninformed on the issue in the hopes that fewer will choose to circumcise their children. Perhaps someday it will be so common for parents to specifically request that doctors do not perform a circumcision that will simply become standard practice to only perform them upon request and only the sons of the religious will have to endure the procedure.

1. Circumcision removes the foreskin. The foreskin serves many useful functions, including protecting the glans from abrasion, contaminants, and keratinization. Additionally, the foreskin facilitates smooth sexual intercourse through its gliding action. The gliding action complements the vagina's natural lubrication as well as serves to keep the lubricant inside the vagina as opposed to the circumcised penis's tendency to pull the lubrication outside of the body. The foreskin also accounts for some of the penis's girth, the most important factor in pleasure for most women according to many studies.
2. Circumcision removes the frenar band, Meissner's Corpuscles, and the frenulum (not always). Each of these structures is a highly erogenous zone. The loss of these structures reduces the completeness of sexual enjoyment by necessity. The frenar band is the primary erogenous zone on the intact penis and is responsible for the intensity of sexual response. The Meissner's Corpuscles are fine touch sensors that detect small changes in motion, temperature, and texture. The corpuscles represent another, albeit more subtle, component of the normal male sexual response. The frenulum, which is not always removed during circumcision, serves as a tether for the foreskin and is also an erogenous zone. The frenulum is often the only remaining primary erogenous zone left on circumcised men and is therefore usually the most sensitive part of the circumcised penis (assuming it has not been removed).
3. The intact foreskin serves immunological functions as well. The mucosa of the inner foreskin contain plasma cells which produce antibacterial and antiviral proteins as well as lysozyme. Additionally, circumcision removes lymph vessels, reducing the flow of lymph to and from the penis. The lymphatic system is a major part of the body's immune system.
4. Circumcision can affect the natural development of the penis. Circumcision can directly alter the development of the penis in the cases of excess scar tissue or excess tissue removal. Either of these cases can alter the normal growth of the penis, most commonly by increasing the curvature of the penis. Additionally, circumcision removes a significant amount of blood vessels in the penis. This loss of circulation reduces the amount of blood flow to the penis, altering its growth and developm

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[Phisbut]

How did this go from Pakistan to a discussion on circumcision?

Slashdot: using the power of non sequiturs to bring you rants on pet topics!

Probably the same way this article on Jack Thompson became a discussion on gun control and the American Revolution (not counting the whole "if you could have killed Hitler in 1925" part), on the second comment! That was the fastest going off-topic I've seen. On the whole first page of comments, only the very first comment is remotely related to Thompson.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[MightyYar]

Indeed - I should have said "most of us". My apologies.

You do understand that my argument is not that "circumcision is never harmful", right? I'm just claiming that it is near the bottom of the pile when it comes to things negatively affecting children today. Television has been shown to directly harm children, and yet it is legal. Second-hand smoke has been shown to directly harm children, and yet it is legal. Nutrition is directly related to everything from IQ to health problems, and yet we don't mandate how people feed their children. Thousands of children are maimed, injured, or killed in automobile accidents, and yet it is legal to drive a kid around.

And yet these people are spending all of this time and energy on the most benign thing that I've mentioned - circumcision. It appears to be so benign that all anyone can do is point to a few scattered case studies, since there does not seem to be any published scientific study linking infant circumcision to long term health or psychological problems.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[MightyYar]

It keeps coming up because it's another example of something which doesn't cause significant harm. So why is one okay, but not the other? Actually it keeps coming up as an argument because people often resort to a straw man when they can't make a good argument based on the actual subject matter, but I digress...

So cutting off pinkies doesn't cause harm, eh? Okay - I guess I'll humor you and argue in imagination-land.

IF cutting off pinkies had existed in a culture for 6000 years, and IF cutting off pinkies was never demonstrated to cause long-term harm - then it would be no different... it would be silly to prevent people from doing it.

However, no culture exists AFAIK which cuts of pinkies AND it would be pretty easy to demonstrate harm.

So it's a silly, silly comparison.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[MightyYar]

Easy there Chester - I like the show. But a few things:

• It's TV, not reality. Not scientific, not balanced. It's like Mythbusters - entertainment first, science second. Bullshit is very entertaining, and actually does a pretty good job for its genre, but it is still first and foremost entertainment.
• I've seen a bunch of these, because I like the show. But Penn has a very obvious bias towards the libertarian, and he does unabashedly let it shine through. He's like the anti-Michael Moore.
• In most episodes involving a controversy, he finds a nut on each far end of the spectrum. He does this for the same reason that CNN does it - it makes for better TV, even if it is not a good representation of the issue at hand.

In the circumcision episode - which is absolutely hysterical and one of his best - he finds a completely nuts guy to hang weights off of his penis on TV!

you have been give PLENTY of clicky link showing reputable people, organisations and such No, I haven't. I've gotten some links to some shady systems analyst's web site and some writeups on propaganda sites. Not one single scientifically sound article has been linked to. In fact, some of the links that people have posted directly contradict the argument they are trying to make.

i can only conclude you are either taking the piss to get a reaction or that you are just plain thicker than miss piggy's last dump! No, I'm burning all of my Karma here because I can't believe what a bunch of nut jobs you all are - trying to take away our rights as parents without a shred of sound science in your court. If you are going to attack a 6000-year-old tradition, come with some evidence or expect your beliefs to be attacked. What you are preaching has no more scientific basis than religion.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[MightyYar]

Not being circumcised, however, allows one to enjoy sex even more. Do you have a scientific basis for this or are you just saying it without evidence. Show me a study that ties enjoyment of sex to infant circumcision. Your four points are a good exercise in logic, but there is nothing to back up your claim that the sex lives of adults circumcised as infants is diminished in any way. Hell, there's even a 30-something in the thread claiming that he was circumcised as an adult and finds sex just as pleasurable.

thus I recommend that you do not circumcise any of your children. You are barking up the wrong tree - I'm not likely to circumcise my kids. But it is my choice.

That principle states that in the case a procedure may cause harm (and given that we know that it does and may cause more than we know, circumcision clearly meets this requirement) and there is an absence of consensus that the procedure will not cause harm (clearly this is not the case since it is a controversial issue and no medical standards body recommends circumcision except in cases of necessity), then the burden of proof is on those that advocate the procedure and not those who oppose it. Better go after the ear piercers then, because piercing ears also violates that principle. But that won't get people worked into a lather because it doesn't involve sex.

he complications that can arise from circumcision are dire, and the estimated occurrence rate is anywhere from 2-10% of all circumcisions performed. Yes, I saw the "paper" that gave this "estimate". It includes uneven scaring as a complication. It then shows "mutilated" penises found in gay porn as examples of these complications. Excuse me if I am not impressed when something so horribly "mutilated" is used to sell magazines and get people sexually aroused. How horrible can it be if people are happy with it and paid to show it off?

However, why take the risk, especially when the procedure is completely unnecessary and in fact harmful to your child even assuming the procedure is performed perfectly? It all depends on the risk level, which seems quite low. When you drive the kid home from the hospital you "needlessly" risk a crash. Nearly every choice that a parent makes will affect the child - forgive me for not sweating something which carries a parts-per-million risk when accidents at home still kill over 100,000 people each year in the US. Are we to outlaw every activity that MIGHT hurt or kill a child?

So forgive me for demanding some kind of scientific proof before we wipe out a 6000-year-old tradition.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[MightyYar]

You must be circumcised, and that is why you are violent.

At least, that's what the anti-circumcision nuts are telling me on this forum.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[MightyYar]

Would you care to elaborate on this specific, very permanent way? I don't feel harmed, and I was circumcised, and I'm not religious.

Anyway, what you and I are relating are case studies - not scientific evidence. It could be that there is something else wrong with me and so I can't appreciate the loss of my foreskin. Or, you could have some mental condition that has caused you to direct your sense of loss and sadness towards the loss of your foreskin.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[MightyYar]

What's fascist is violating the rights of innocent people. So now we can just invent rights? A kid - poof - now has the right to an intact penis. Why? Because it is their RIGHT!

If you can't demonstrate harm, then what right is being infringed?

It is just another cultural thing - like the language you speak or the education you receive or the diet your parents feed you. Unless you can demonstrate it as being harmful, you are the one infringing on the right of parents to raise their own kid via their own culture. EVEN THEN, we tend to give latitude to people based on their cultural preferences. You can opt out of immunizations, for instance. You can refuse certain types of medical treatments for your kids, despite the clear harm that will become them.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[vyrus128]

And yet these people are spending all of this time and energy on the most benign thing that I've mentioned - circumcision.

Part of my penis was sliced off when I was a child. The fact that there are more important things in the world than the integrity of my genitalia does not make your use of the word "benign" any more appropriate.

P.S. in case by some chance my parents ever find and read this: Understand that I don't have any hard feelings towards you about this. I'm arguing against this being The Way Things Are Done, not that individual parents are automatically bad people for failing to go against the flow -- I understand that the strength of cultural norms is huge, even when they are stupid.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[The One and Only]

So now we can just invent rights?

No, what we do is have intelligent discussions about what rights we do have, without calling each other fascists. I think it's clear where you fall short in this respect.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[Pax681]

LOL not science..LOLOL Waht i am "preaching" as you put it ir HGILY MORAL in that i think it's a disgrace and barbaric to do a proceedure on a child that has no medical basis or value and is done purely on aesthetics. your stance is to "poo-poo" ANY genuine evidence as "nonsense" which shows that you are showing a more dogmatic "anything anyone shows me that proves i am wrong i will just say it's not scientific even when it is" it's the equivelant of putting your fingers in your ears and shouting "lalalalalalalalala" LOL 6000 years???..lol where ddid you pick that number....hmmm lemme guess... the bible... well according to those ber scientific indivudual who wish to retard the entire world(born again christians) that's when they say the world was formed. you sir should be feartured on Y.A.A.F.M! but even if you look at it from a purely judeaic point of view, there were many other religions who did it before. it isn't a purely judeo/christian thing. And even the Rabbi in teh prgram made comment on circimcision not truly being required(i imagine in relation of converts) in fact , as some wise gentleman quoted earlier on, i do believe it was St paul , who in trying to sell christianity outside the jewish community, tried to preach that circumcision was on a requisite for christianity. Just because something is tradition does not make it right or proper to do. I am not trying to take away yopur rights as a parent, i am trying to reinforce in you the RIGHTS OF THE CHILD to be able to make an informed choice. a newborn child cannot make an informed choice. Now back onto P&T's program... what about the quote from the American medical association ... are they NOT scientific enough?, what about the Dr's there saying their professional opinion on it? so they are not scientific because you don't agree. you see they have to make sure they get their research spot on or it's litigation time... you however just seem to reject even expert opinion because it doesn't conform to your very narrow world view. i think i shall rename you MightYARSE! that seems to be what you talk out of mostly when not sticking yor fingers in your ears shouting "lalalalala.... i can't hear you" to facts posted here along with the genuine moral issue in regards to this brutal proceedure.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[MightyYar]

Part of my penis was sliced off when I was a child. Me too! But it didn't have any negative effects on me. I'm sorry that it has for you.

We don't stop driving our cars voluntarily even though tens of thousands die each year - including children who have no choice in the matter. Nor should we stop other voluntary practices just because there are accidents, especially when the "accident" rate is as low as it seems to be for circumcision. Unless routine infant circumcision can be shown to have some long-term deleterious effect on physical or mental health, I see little reason to attack it.

Think about it this way - if you had been permanently injured in an auto accident as a child, would you be railing against automobile use? I suspect you'd be a proponent of child seat safety instead - that is, reducing the risk instead of eliminating the activity altogether.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[MightyYar]

If I see a duck I call it a duck.

Stripping someone of a right that they currently have has to be done very carefully. If there was some body of scientific research that backed up the banning of circumcision, I wouldn't be here arguing like this and burning up all my karma. The fact is that some people find circumcision icky, and others have fallen for these pseudo-scientific websites.

Calling for a ban on circumcision amounts to stripping people of the right to impart an element of their own culture on their children. Unless there is a scientific reason to do so, it is fascist - plain and simple. These kids aren't in any danger - there is just an element that doesn't like their culture and wants to forcibly change it.

I'm using a very loose meaning of the term fascist. I don't mean to imply that anti-circumcision folks are militaristic or anything - just that they want to wipe out a facet of a culture simply because they find it disturbing. I'm not savvy enough to use a different term, so feel free to suggest one.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[MightyYar]

your stance is to "poo-poo" ANY genuine evidence as "nonsense" which shows that you are showing a more dogmatic "anything anyone shows me that proves i am wrong i will just say it's not scientific even when it is" Show me a link that you think is scientific. I doubt you can come up with anything other than a link to one of these pseudo-science web sites.

6000 years???..lol where ddid you pick that number....hmmm lemme guess... the bible... No... not the bible. I read it in one of the links provided by your esteemed pseudo-science buddies. So it might be bullshit. But we know it has been around for several thousand for sure, as it is a Jewish tradition. And even you concede that it predates Judaism. Certainly long enough that it should be paid some respect.

I am not trying to take away yopur rights as a parent, i am trying to reinforce in you the RIGHTS OF THE CHILD to be able to make an informed choice. You can't extend a choice to a child on every little thing. They automatically get a religion (or lack of religion), a language, a diet, an educational system, hell - a whole culture. All of those things are significantly more important than whether or not they have their foreskin.

Now back onto P&T's program... what about the quote from the American medical association ... are they NOT scientific enough?, That quote only says it hasn't been found to be beneficial and so they don't recommend it. I'm not disputing that. I'm disputing that anyone can say that it is harmful.

you however just seem to reject even expert opinion because it doesn't conform to your very narrow world view. You are completely misinterpreting my argument, so here it is plain and simple:

1. Circumcision is an important part of many cultures.
2. There is no scientific evidence tying infant circumcision to any kind of problems - mental or physical - in the adult population.
3. Asking a culture to change without any scientific basis is not appropriate.
4. Even if there IS a slight correlation between infant circumcision and something later in life, I contend that it would be small potatoes compared to other choices that parents make which we tolerate (TV, nutrition, education, immunizations, etc).

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[MightyYar]

Before you permanently mutilate your son, you should be proving that it's needed. I disagree. I am not the one trying to change the status quo. I can't believe that you expect people to give up their culture without any basis other than you find it to be distasteful. So the practice might not be beneficial? So what? Demonstrate that it is harmful before you go telling people they are wrong.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[MightyYar]

"My mommy doesn't love me." Classic. You managed to flame me, my parents, doctors, rabbis, and my countrymen in one paragraph.

Are you going to put up any scientific evidence of harm, or am I to just take it you are more squeamish than I am?

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[MightyYar]

Your personal observations do not make for a scientific study.

Besides, is it really a surprise when people get defensive after you've insinuated that their parents are ignorant savages?

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[vyrus128]

Nor should we stop other voluntary practices just because there are accidents

We're not talking about a voluntary practice though, unless you believe that parents have complete dominion over their children's bodies. I don't know if you're one of the people from the thread above who was claiming this is a bad analogy, but I think it's an excellent one: Would you think it okay, or consider it "voluntary", if a parent had their child's left (or off-hand) pinky sliced off shortly after birth? If anything it probably has less useful function (and I say that as someone who types on a keyboard for a living.)

Or if you think the pinky has too much utility to be a good analogy (and I'll happily argue the utility of the foreskin, but not just at this moment), what about the little toe, or the earlobe? Completely useless bits of flesh. I think the word "mutilation" would be appropriate if a parent cut one of _those_ off.

Consider those things both 1) in the context of a society where it's considered normal, and everybody does it, and 2) in the context of a society where it would be an aberration, such as ours. I think in (2), such a thing would be rightly called mutilation and battery, and those doing it would be sent to prison. In the case of (1), the issue is much less clear: for cultural reasons, I think you can probably excuse the parents for not knowing any better; but I _don't_ think that makes it good! I think even in (1), the globally best thing would be to try to transition to (2), even though I wouldn't blame individual parents in (1) for their actions.

I feel like we're in (1) with respect to male circumcision, and we should be trying to move to (2). Because while I think cultural reasons prevent condemning parents who practice it currently, I think the only morally acceptable outcome is to try as hard as we can to bring about (2), by trying to change the culture which makes people think this is okay. There's just no good reason to cut bits off a child, no matter how much your culture tells you it's a good idea! And to those people who cite cleanliness reasons, I say this: If you really think performing elective surgery on a small child is the appropriate response to a personal hygiene issue? Kill yourself. (I shouldn't tack this on to this comment, because it's not directed at you, it's just a pet peeve I'm venting; but I'm not going to start any more threads on this, because I have work to do, so I'm putting it here. Sorry for the bile.)

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[The One and Only]

Stripping someone of a right that they currently have has to be done very carefully.

What about granting rights that people don't currently have? They're necessarily two sides of the same coin: if I take away your right to walk down the street punching people in the nose, I give the people down the street the right not to be punched in the nose. Conversely, if I take away your right to not be punched in the nose, I give others the right to punch you in the nose. If I take away your right to circumcise your kids, I give your kids the right not to be circumcised. Likewise, if circumcision was illegal, you'd be the one stripping people (infant boys) of a right they already had in order to give their parents more rights. Your analysis of the situation fails.

The rights of parents to control their children are already restricted by law, particularly when certain actions would cause permanent damage. The most basic argument against circumcision, which I endorse, is that the removal of the foreskin itself is permanent damage. It's also an easily identifiable practice for which physical evidence is always present, making enforceability easy--always important legal considerations. Politically, outlawing circumcision is currently untenable, but making legal reforms for moral reasons is always a long-term process.

As for the term "fascist", the word was overloaded to the point of meaninglessness before the movement itself even died out. In 1944, Orwell wrote:

It will be seen that, as used, the word 'Fascism' is almost entirely meaningless. In conversation, of course, it is used even more wildly than in print. I have heard it applied to farmers, shopkeepers, Social Credit, corporal punishment, fox-hunting, bull-fighting, the 1922 Committee, the 1941 Committee, Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-Shek, homosexuality, Priestley's broadcasts, Youth Hostels, astrology, women, dogs and I do not know what else.

Two years later, Orwell noted:

Many political words are similarly abused. The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies 'something not desirable'....

I think in your situation, a more precise word would be "authoritarian". I make this suggestion presuming, in good faith, that you're more interested in precise and honest discourse than with heaping scorn upon your perceived enemies.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[mdwh2]

Because society has decided that it is not "assault" or "mutilation", but instead something called "circumcision".

If I circumcised you, it would be circumcision. Yes, I know society has decided it's not assault in the case of a baby - I'm asking why the difference. Saying it's not assault for babies "because society has decided that it is not assault" doesn't explain much.

Because society has decided that it is not "assault" or "mutilation", but instead something called "circumcision". Just because it is distasteful to you does not mean everyone shares your opinion.

We may disagree, but don't try to misrepresent my position. I do not oppose it because it is distasteful - what I oppose is chopping off bits of someone else's body without their consent, for no good reason.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[mdwh2]

Actually it keeps coming up as an argument because people often resort to a straw man

It's not a straw man. We know that you don't think cutting off little fingers is okay, and we're not suggesting otherwise - we're asking you why the difference.

IF cutting off pinkies had existed in a culture for 6000 years, and IF cutting off pinkies was never demonstrated to cause long-term harm - then it would be no different

Wait, so you are saying that as long as was culturally accepted, it would be okay to cut off people's little fingers??

I think that's all we need to know.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[MightyYar]

we're asking you why the difference. I told you that. It would be very easy to demonstrate the harm caused by sawing off a finger, whereas no one can demonstrate harm caused by infant circumcision.

Wait, so you are saying that as long as was culturally accepted, it would be okay to cut off people's little fingers??

I think that's all we need to know. See? Straw man.

Anyway, actually what I said was that if it were culturally accepted AND we were in some alternate universe where it caused no harm. Of course, it's a silly comparison.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[MightyYar]

Saying it's not assault for babies "because society has decided that it is not assault" doesn't explain much. A parent is given special domain over their child. One stranger walking up to another stranger and lopping a body part off is completely different from a parent-child relationship. A parent can pierce their child's ears, give them a tattoo, or lop off their foreskin. A stranger cannot. All of these things seem to be pretty benign compared to the much more important parental actions, such as religious indoctrination, language development, nutrition, etc...

I'm completely open to reversing my position if science determines that infant circumcision is detrimental.

We may disagree, but don't try to misrepresent my position. I do not oppose it because it is distasteful - what I oppose is chopping off bits of someone else's body without their consent, for no good reason. Why? I'd say that sounds like your distaste. You certainly can't point to any kind of a scientific publication implicating infant circumcision as the source of mental or physical harm (or at least no one else here has). Without science backing you up, what you have is belief and ideology.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[MightyYar]

Your analysis of the situation fails. You still are trying to change someones rights (or in this case two sets of rights) without any backing other than your own ideology. I think that is dangerous.

The most basic argument against circumcision, which I endorse, is that the removal of the foreskin itself is permanent damage. That's a pretty broad definition of "damage" IMHO. To me "damage" implies harm, and yet you can show none.

It's also an easily identifiable practice for which physical evidence is always present, making enforceability easy--always important legal considerations. Checking kids' gonads for damage via government edict is just as frightening to me as cameras in the house. Plus I think you are ignoring human nature. You think Jews will just stop the practice? Some will, but many will just avoid doctors except those who are known not to be snitches, or who will sign off on the procedure as being "medically necessary". This has obvious social and public health consequences. Also, in reality you and I both know that any anti-circumcision measure would have exclusions in it just like vaccination laws have making the whole ordeal essentially toothless.

I think in your situation, a more precise word would be "authoritarian". Maybe, but to me that word implies a sort of dictatorship. I'll use it if you prefer, though. It is a bit Orwellian to think of my government checking my kids' penis. I mean, imagine that my kid actually needed the procedure. I'd have to go fetch my "papers" proving that it was a necessary procedure every time he visited the doctor. Very spooky.

It would be different if you had a definitive link between infant circumcision and some kind of disorder. Then you would have science on your side.

I don't really mean to demonize anyone, but it is very hard to view those pseudo-science websites without wondering whether the people running them are deliberately misleading people - or if they are just a bit misled or uneducated. It's a lot like other fields involving pseudo science... "intelligent design" is one and new age religion tends to be another.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[Pax681]

so the American Medical Association is pseudo scientists?? io think the whole of the American medical practitioners are cranks then? they are a reputable organisation who REPRESENT THE MEDICAL COMMUNITY YOU MUPPET! how can you not recognise their legitimacy and threfore their opinion as 100% scientific and based on vast amounts of medical accumulated knowledge? e still got yout fingers in your ears i see! the two paediatricians in the programs are quacks? again REAL medical scientists giving their professional opinion! what's so professional about YOUR opinion...

And even you concede that it predates Judaism. Certainly long enough that it should be paid some respect.

and just because it's an old/traditional pratice, such as female circumcision is doesn't make it right. there are many of these traditional practices that are plain and ouright BARBARIC, so by your "logic" all these are fine and shopuld be respected and no-one shold point out they are morally repugnant? .... not a chance bud, not a chance

There is no scientific evidence tying infant circumcision to any kind of problems - mental or physical - in the adult population.

so the fact you are putting your child into so much pain it goes into shock and the agonised screams can be heard from this barbaric practise means nothign to you, the fact you are denying a child it's RIGHT not to be forcibly put through AGONISING PAIN means nothing?... you make me barf! did you know that child child circumcision is banned in france due to it's barbaric nature??? mind you , i can imagien you coming upo with some "freedom fries " logic on that FACT..LOL it's also beng banned in Norway and there is a movement in the UK to have the same law brought in. the ban is brought in for ETHICAL REASON alogn the lines that excising healthy tissue from a child that cannot give consent is an imoral practise and therefore unethical and unneccassary! Tasmanian childrens commissioner also called for a ban on child circumcision too! teh Danish also compare male circumcision to female circumcision and a ban was called for my the magazine "Politiken" Also as an asides, if male circumcision(in adults) is meant to prevent HIV, and apparently most American males are circumcised then how comes the VAST majority of male HIV positive males are circumcised.... the HIV crap[ioca sounds like voodo science to me from a so called study of a VERY SMALL group of people. so how about this wee history here

10,000 (?) BCE Aboriginal tribes in central and desert regions of Australia introduce circumcision of boys as puberty rite 6000 (?) BCE Circumcision (male and female) practised as puberty rite by tribes in north-eastern African and Arabian peninsula 3100 BCE Egypt invaded from the south, perhaps by African tribes bringing circumcision with them. 2300 BCE Egyptian bas-relief which may show some form of genital mutilation being performed. The relief is eroded and hard to interpret. More commonly seen as modern reconstruction. One interpretation is that it just shows the pubic hair being shaved. Contrary to some reports, no circumcised mummies have been found, but some statues show what may be a superincision (cutting a slit in the upper side of the foreskin, or dorsal slit). 600 BCE First five books of Hebrew Bible (Torah) compiled, including Genesis with its reference to Yaweh's command to Abraham to circumcise himself, his sons and his slaves and servants. Circumcision enforced by priests among Jewish people as sign of the Covenant. 450 BCE Greek historians note prevalence of circumcision and other penile mutilations among the Arabs and other Middle Eastern tribes. Herodotus (485-420 BCE) observes and deplores circumcision among the Colchians, Ethiopians, Phoenicians, Syrians, and Macrones, as well as the Egyptian priestly caste. He criticises the fanatical ritual cleanliness of the Egyptian priests: "They [even] practice circumcision for the sake of cleanline

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[Blublu]

The vast overwhelming majority of people don't have any problems with foreskin. And of course someone who is a nurse has seen people with problems. She's a nurse for crying out loud! I'll bet she has seen people with infections in their nose, does that mean it makes sense to cut everyone's nose off? Anyway, the medical evidence says no to circumcision, so there's really nothing to discuss. Yes, it might be necessary for a few people, but not most. You don't put someone in completely unnecessary (involuntary) surgery. That's just not what doctors do. Sorry.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[Blublu]

One does not need to "have had" something in order to oppose it. Do you think it's wrong to rape someone and then kill them? Really? Well, stop being such a wussy about something you haven't gone through. Your logic is stupid. And for your information, it takes about five seconds in the shower/bath to "get clean down there". It's not a fucking big deal. Shut up about stuff you obviously know nothing about.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[MightyYar]

Oy, not the pinky again.

Slicing of a pinky is not harmless. It is easy to demonstrate this, and it would be trivial to prove scientifically. At the very least it would decrease typing speed.

More importantly, no culture in the world practices this, which puts it firmly in the straw man argument category.

and I'll happily argue the utility of the foreskin, but not just at this moment So what is a uncircumcised male capable of, mentally or physically, that a circumcised male is not? I posit that the foreskin does stuff, but missing it does not impact or impair the "victim" in any measurable way.

what about the little toe, or the earlobe? Completely useless bits of flesh. I think the word "mutilation" would be appropriate if a parent cut one of _those_ off. Wait a minute... you also don't want people to mutilate their earlobes? Good God, that's pretty common and very harmless. We are indeed on different planes, because I see no reason to prevent parents from having their kids' ears pierced. I don't care what words you use, by the way. If you want to call circumcision "mutilation", knock yourself out. It still appears to be harmless.

Yes, I think you have to consider culture when you judge people when they choose to mutilate their child. Certainly piercing an ear or even stretching the ear lobe to bizarre proportions is culturally acceptable in certain cultures and has no real downside that I can think of. On the other hand, if a WASP Nebraskan couple did this to their child, you might want to consider their intentions. That kid is going to suffer a lot of social stigma.

I feel like we're in (1) with respect to male circumcision, and we should be trying to move to (2). I pretty much agree - but forbidding harmless rituals through the force of law is not the right way to approach this. Nor is demonizing the practice. It's okay to point out that circumcision has no demonstrable benefit. It's also okay to point out that there is some debate as to whether that last statement is true. It is quite another thing to make people believe that it is harmful, when it in fact does not appear to be.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[The One and Only]

You still are trying to change someones rights (or in this case two sets of rights) without any backing other than your own ideology.

You're trying to keep those rights the same without any backing other than your own ideology. It's a fallacy to privilege the status quo.

That's a pretty broad definition of "damage" IMHO. To me "damage" implies harm, and yet you can show none.

The harm is that the boy's missing part of his penis, and that he lost it without his consent. Maybe he thought it would look better intact, maybe he would prefer a more sensitive glans, maybe he would rather have gliding action when he masturbates--that's a choice that should fundamentally be left to him. Making it at birth limits his freedom to control his own body. It's not a question of whether he's objectively worse off--it's a question of whether his individual freedoms to control the basic physical structure of his body are respected. There's also the part about cutting through highly sensitive tissues without anaesthetic, but that's a minor and more-easily-corrected issue.

Checking kids' gonads for damage via government edict is just as frightening to me as cameras in the house.

The gonads are, in this case, the testicles--the foreskin is part of the penis, a separate organ. That aside, consider that we already check womens' (and even young girls') vaginas to gather evidence against rapists, there's nothing inherent to the practice of checking someone's genitals to gather evidence for a crime. In fact, were female genital mutilation to occur in this country, the physical evidence would certainly be collected.

I'm not at all suggesting an indiscriminate examination of everyone's penis. As with any other crime, circumcision would only be investigated under due process. If a circumcised boy or man wanted his parents prosecuted, he would volunteer the evidence himself, just as rape victims need to consent for a rape kit to be collected. My only point was that such a law would be easily enforceable.

You think Jews will just stop the practice? Some will, but many will just avoid doctors except those who are known not to be snitches, or who will sign off on the procedure as being "medically necessary".

Traditional Jewish circumcisions are performed by mohels, who are not necessarily doctors but often are. Again, Judaism (along with the rest of society) will have to reform significantly before banning circumcision is politically tenable, but that says nothing about the moral status of the act itself.

Maybe, but to me that word implies a sort of dictatorship.

And "fascist" doesn't?

It would be different if you had a definitive link between infant circumcision and some kind of disorder. Then you would have science on your side.

You know, properly treated amputations of any small body part aren't definitely linked to disorders, but you're still missing a body part.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[MightyYar]

Before you reply to my comment you might want to breath a bit - you seem a little, um, worked up :) I'll do my best to work around the personal insults and just address your points.

so the American Medical Association is pseudo scientists??

What in the world are you talking about? Where did I call them that? Here, straight from their website, is what they say:

Our AMA: (1) encourages training programs for pediatricians, obstetricians, and family physicians to incorporate information on the use of local pain control techniques for neonatal circumcision; (2) supports the general principles of the 1999 Circumcision Policy Statement of the American Academy of Pediatrics, which reads as follows:"Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision. In circumstances in which there are potential benefits and risks, yet the procedure is not essential to the child's current well-being, parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child. To make an informed choice, parents of all male infants should be given accurate and unbiased information and be provided the opportunity to discuss this decision. If a decision for circumcision is made, procedural analgesia should be provided;" and (3) urges that as part of the informed consent discussion, the risks and benefits of pain control techniques for circumcision be thoroughly discussed to aid parents in making their decisions. (CSA Rep. 10, I-99)

So basically they say that they can't recommend circumcision, and it should be up to the parents, but if you do it use anesthesia. Nowhere do they claim that it is harmful. What are you getting at?

and just because it's an old/traditional pratice, such as female circumcision is doesn't make it right. there are many of these traditional practices that are plain and ouright BARBARIC, so by your "logic" all these are fine and shopuld be respected and no-one shold point out they are morally repugnant? .... not a chance bud, not a chance

Noooo.... that's not what I'm saying. Being old doesn't override other tests for harm. But where is the modern evidence supporting your claim that infant circumcision is harmful?

so the fact you are putting your child into so much pain it goes into shock and the agonised screams can be heard from this barbaric practise means nothign to you, the fact you are denying a child it's RIGHT not to be forcibly put through AGONISING PAIN means nothing?

That is why the AMA recommends anesthetic.

did you know that child child circumcision is banned in france due to it's barbaric nature???

No, and a quick Google search shows this to be untrue.

beng banned in Norway and there is a movement in the UK to have the same law brought in.

Are you sure you aren't talking about female circumcision? Googling shows new laws against female, but not male circumcision.

and apparently most American males are circumcised then how comes the VAST majority of male HIV positive males are circumcised....

Since much of the AIDS in the US is spread via rectal contact, circumcision will not have a measurable effect. Is that what you meant? But I don't know why you brought this up... I never argued that there was any benefit to circumcision.

snip biiiiig... cut and paste

Okay, I went through your history, and I'll show you what I mean by psuedo-science. There is really only one item on that page implying that circumcision is harmful - most of the items are claiming it is unnecessary. But the very last item DOES imply that a medical journal found that "too many circumcisions" are taking place in Australia. Of course, this is only a half-truth.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[Pax681]

I don't actually think that I would circumcise my own son - why do it? There is no benefit and I have no religious or cultural reason to do it. I object to cosmetic surgery in general, so that petty much ties it up for me

LOLOL thus proving my point that you are basically playing your cards like like as you purely enjoy beligerance. kinda sad

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[Taevin]

Do you have a scientific basis for this or are you just saying it without evidence. Show me a study that ties enjoyment of sex to infant circumcision.

The issue is clearly clouded. I have seen studies that support conclusions about circumcision from any perspective imaginable. If I scoured journals and the Internet long enough, I could undoubtedly find a study that supports my views perfectly, just as I'm sure you could do the same. I'm not on a crusade however, and in the absence of scientific evidence supporting a conclusion either way, I'd rather stick to logical and moral discussion from a humanistic perspective. However, I do find it interesting that you focus on infant circumcision since men who were circumcised at birth clearly have no point of comparison. Humans are wired to enjoy and seek out sex, so much so that genital stimulation is not even required for orgasm. Is it any surprise then that men who were circumcised as infants do not generally report any greater level of sexual dissatisfaction than uncircumcised men, especially when they don't know any better?

You are barking up the wrong tree - I'm not likely to circumcise my kids. But it is my choice.

I applaud your decision. However, I staunchly oppose your statement that it is your choice (implied right), or at least that it should be so. In my opinion, and I hope the opinion of everyone that believes in the natural rights of Man, it is never acceptable to disfigure a human without their permission. I find it very telling that circumcision is only an issue with those who cannot express their opinion (in words anyway) or give permission: infants. Were the male older, say a teenager, no doctor would circumcise the boy on the request of his parents if he opposed it. Just because the infant cannot say no, that makes it acceptable? The child may be yours, but it is a human being not your property. No doctor would cut off a finger or toe at the request of a parent, so why is it different with the foreskin? Who gave parents ownership over their son's foreskin that they can decide whether it is to be severed?

Better go after the ear piercers then, because piercing ears also violates that principle. But that won't get people worked into a lather because it doesn't involve sex.

I'm going to infer here that you're talking about parents that pierce their infants ears since, just as with circumcision, it is a non-issue if the child is old enough to request the procedure. I was not aware of parents piercing their children's ears, but I oppose it on the same grounds as I do forced circumcision. It is not the right of the parent to modify their child's body to their own liking. You are right that I'm not going to get working into a "lather" over ear piercing but not because it does not involve sex. It is still a violation of the right of the child to the security of her own body, but it is not to the same degree as circumcision because it does not permanently change or remove the naturally evolved function of the human body. I don't claim to know much about ear piercing but it is my understanding that the body will restore itself to normal appearance if the hole is absent a piece of jewelry, given enough time. If the same was true of the foreskin it would be less of an issue although I would still see it as an unjust intrusion into another's body.

Yes, I saw the "paper" that gave this "estimate". It includes uneven scaring as a complication. It then shows "mutilated" penises found in gay porn as examples of these complications. Excuse me if I am not impressed when something so horribly "mutilated" is used to sell magazines and get people sexually aroused. How horrible can it be if people are happy with it and paid to show it off?

I fail to see this as justification for continuing to mutilate children. People enjoy viewing a wide range of intense images ranging from botched surgery to gruesome killings

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[MightyYar]

What are you talking about? I'm still defending the right of people who want to circumcise their kids. You don't think I could choose for personal reasons not to do it, and yet want to reserve the right?

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[MightyYar]

Is it any surprise then that men who were circumcised as infants do not generally report any greater level of sexual dissatisfaction than uncircumcised men, especially when they don't know any better?

No, and we're both using the same item as our point :) I'm pointing to it as "look, these guys aren't harmed because they are not aware of any difference and are perfectly happy." You are pointing to the same fact and saying "these guys are harmed because they will never know what it is like to be uncircumcised. They will never know what they are missing."

It's really a difference in philosophy. I'm still in the "you aren't harmed if you can't prove harm" camp, though.

The thing is, though... even if you are right, it is such a minor issue that I don't know what the big fuss is about. I understand that it violates your ideology very severely - but doesn't ideology bend to reality? Isn't it more important to look at real-world effects in the end? Why does circumcision deserve such attention when it's affect - if measurable at all - is so much smaller than the affect of other choices that parents make in the rearing of a child?

Why does your ideology give precedence to the body over the mind? A mind can be just as "mutilated" as a body. A parent can ruin a mind, and this has far more lasting consequences than a mutilated foreskin. To paraphrase you, who gave parents ownership over their son's mind that they can decide how it is to be indoctrinated?

I submit that the mind is a body part no different from any other, and that the invisible line separating the two in your ideology is a false one.

To pick on the Jews for a moment - what is more significant: the fact that they snip off your foreskin, or the fact that you are programmed to be Jewish from the moment you are delivered? One thing may or may not affect your sex life - certainly not in a way that you would be aware. The other affects nearly every other aspect of your life. Who will be your friends, who will be your wife, what you eat, what you drink, your education, your job - everything.

So I guess I have two points that I don't understand: why the separation between brain and body and why so much attention on something that hasn't been shown to actually matter?

In my opinion, and I hope the opinion of everyone that believes in the natural rights of Man, it is never acceptable to disfigure a human without their permission.

Again, I do believe that parents have a responsibility to shape their kids in a way that they deem to be in their best interests. Shaping the body in harmless ways is no different from shaping the mind in harmless ways. If a culture won't accept you unless you lop off the foreskin, then so be it. If a culture won't accept you without a pierced ear, than so be it. If you need some kind of warrior tattoo, fine. It's no different than being indoctrinated not to eat shellfish or meat on Fridays or to not say certain words.

Now I will object when the shaping is no longer harmless, be it mental or physical.

I fail to see this as justification for continuing to mutilate children.

I wasn't trying to justify anything. I was pointing out a "flaw" in the study. Their criteria for a complication was quite high compared to what people might have been aware of. I was pointing out that what they considered a "complication", other people considered beautiful... and we're not talking about sociopaths looking at car crashes - we are talking about horny guys getting off on pictures of normal dicks.

I would guess that most would pay a good deal more than whatever meager amount they received to have their picture taken to have their condition reversed.

I think you would find that most guys are happy with their dicks (except possibly for size). I have no data to back that statement up, but I have never met anyone interested in getting their foreskin back. I live in the US, though, and not on the West

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[Pax681]

in cases where this was't about the barbaric un-ndded removal of healthy tissue from infant children then i would applaud a freedom og choice. in this case i cannot due to the fact that the CHILD who'd healthy tissue is being removed ISN'T GIVEN THE CHOICE. this is a moral and ethical issue that IS indeed backed up by qualified medical professionals and legislatures worldwide. In my eyes it IS legitimate to equate male circumcison with female circumcision (of the type the removes the healthy labia tissue) and thus if there are to be equal rights and protection for children then both practices shoyld be equally illegal practices/traditions EVERYWHERE. the ponly circumstance where male circumcision of a chld would be acceptable to me would in where it was considered a medical necessity . in this case i see it as rank hypocrisy to say "i would not do this to my son" and yet promote the "right" of others to barbarically remove the healthy tissue of the penis in a CHILD.

The UN Commission on the former Yugoslavia defines circumcision as sexual assault and a human rights violationlink

In Article 24.3 of the Convention on the Rights of the Childlink the phrase, "traditional procedures prejudicial to the health of children," refers to the practice of circumcision. The circumcision of male children, therefore, violates numerous provisions of various international human rights instruments,Link A Link B Link C and must be considered unethical medical practice.

Doctors Opposing Circumcision has released a detailed report on human rights and the circumcision of children.link

in fact, why not have a gander yourself instead of me doign all the work for you! http://www.cirp.org/library/ethics/ http://www.cirp.org/library/ethics/#me15 however here is an ethical argument that i think you will find HARd to counter with 2but they give anaesthetic!

Pain relief. Circumcision is an inherently painful procedure. Contemporary medical ethics requires that anesthesia/analgesia be provided for painful procedures on children. Provision of pain relief, however, cannot make an unethical procedure ethical .

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[Taevin]

No, and we're both using the same item as our point :) I'm pointing to it as "look, these guys aren't harmed because they are not aware of any difference and are perfectly happy." You are pointing to the same fact and saying "these guys are harmed because they will never know what it is like to be uncircumcised. They will never know what they are missing."

Let's ignore most of the harms of circumcision for a moment and focus only on the completely understood sliding mechanism of the foreskin. Removal of the foreskin prevents this action and is scientifically undeniable. Your argument is that this harm does not exist because the circumcised men don't complain since they don't know any better. My argument is that the harm is irrefutable and should be avoided if possible. The ignorance of circumcised men as to the full potential of the human penis is irrelevant to my argument.

Isn't it more important to look at real-world effects in the end? Why does circumcision deserve such attention when it's affect - if measurable at all - is so much smaller than the affect of other choices that parents make in the rearing of a child?

Clearly you refuse to believe that its affect is not small in spite of the evidence, so I'm probably going to have to let that go. Again, disregarding any harm, it is still an unauthorized (and almost certainly unwanted) intrusion into the body of the child. Given your attitude, I would hazard a guess and say that you would be opposed to outlawing circumcision since it removes a "choice" for parents. Why do you not feel the same for your son? Should he not have the opportunity to decide what he wants to do with his own penis?

So I guess I have two points that I don't understand: why the separation between brain and body and why so much attention on something that hasn't been shown to actually matter?

This is really not relevant to the discussion on circumcision, but I'll give it some service anyway. There is a marked difference between the brain and body. Cutting off the foreskin is a permanent change to a male's body which cannot be reversed and (in the case of infants) is done without permission. The brain is much harder to permanently change. Parents cannot directly dictate the development of it, only provide input and influence. As many parents can attest, the strong individualization that occurs during puberty can undue years of mental conditioning. In your example of Jews, Jewish children can and do decide not to practice the Jewish faith. If it were so easy to make permanent changes to a child's mental development, the world would be a strikingly different place of much less diversity than we see today.

I wasn't trying to justify anything. I was pointing out a "flaw" in the study. Their criteria for a complication was quite high compared to what people might have been aware of. I was pointing out that what they considered a "complication", other people considered beautiful... and we're not talking about sociopaths looking at car crashes - we are talking about horny guys getting off on pictures of normal dicks.

Now I'm a little lost. Are we contrasting men looking at intact penises against men looking at circumcised ones? A circumcised penis is still a penis and looks the same as an uncircumcised one (although the uncircumcised one will have a healthier color and texture to the glans and tissue surrounding it) with the foreskin retracted, which is common with an erection. It's not surprising on that level then that men may enjoy seeing even a circumcised penis. Even more likely however is that a majority of men who like to look at other men prefer to see those like themselves. Since a majority of men in this country are circumcised, it is again unsurprising that pictures of circumcised men would be popular.

I think you would find that most guys are happy with their dicks (except possibly for size

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[EasyTarget]

Just disappointed with the mediocrity of your attitude. Chopping bits off children does, in fact, matter. And if you're going to do it, have a better reason than 'god', 'my da had his done' or 'I really like having bits of fluff sticking to my glans'.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[MightyYar]

You're trying to keep those rights the same without any backing other than your own ideology. It's a fallacy to privilege the status quo.

If you don't have any evidence to support your position and I don't have any evidence to support my position - then what are we left with but the status quo? Why should we chose you over me or vice versa? I'm arguing that tradition does in fact have some weight when there is no scientific evidence to consider.

The harm is that the boy's missing part of his penis, and that he lost it without his consent.

Why is that "harm"? There is no evidence that a typical circumcised male "misses" anything. And in fact, in a society where most people are circumcised he may not even be aware that anything is missing. Not only that, it does not seem to affect his sexual performance - so how was he "harmed"?

It's not a question of whether he's objectively worse off--it's a question of whether his individual freedoms to control the basic physical structure of his body are respected.

I get what you are saying, but how far does this go? Why is the body treated like a temple when the mind is not? Parents get to indoctrinate their kids with their culture, language, diet, religion, etc. In comparison, the lopping off of the foreskin is nothing. Can you really say that your foreskin is more important than your culture or religion? I just don't understand the importance given to the foreskin. It's like piercing an ear or getting a ritual tattoo... objectionable to some and painful, but completely harmless in the long run.

The gonads are, in this case, the testicles--the foreskin is part of the penis, a separate organ.

I know, but the word is funny :)

If a circumcised boy or man wanted his parents prosecuted, he would volunteer the evidence himself, just as rape victims need to consent for a rape kit to be collected.

Yeah, I just can't get on board with that, though it is certainly better than the scenario I was envisioning. There's something wrong with getting prosecuted 18 years after a "crime" that has no measurable effect on someone. Of course, if we lived in a society where having a circumcised penis made you an outcast I'd be of a different mindset. But circumcision is so common that it is actually the more prevalent form of the penis in our media (porn, art, etc).

Again, Judaism (along with the rest of society) will have to reform significantly before banning circumcision is politically tenable, but that says nothing about the moral status of the act itself.

Asking a culture to change when they aren't inflicting any measurable harm seems a bit harsh to me. In fact, I'm still having trouble with the concept of how someone's rights can be trampled without any measurable harm being inflicted upon them. I can't think of another example of where this is the case.

You know, properly treated amputations of any small body part aren't definitely linked to disorders, but you're still missing a body part.

That's true and misleading at the same time :) I'm not aware of any small body part that is removed ritualistically at birth besides the male and female genitalia. Given that, not much in the way of studies has been carried out (and how could you if they don't exist). In the case of female circumcision, there DOES seem to be harm inflicted - though perhaps not as bad as opponents sometimes paint. It is therefore easier for me to support the right to choose whether or not you want to have your male child circumcised than it is to support the same with a female child. I support the right of parents to pierce the ears of their baby, for instance.

And "fascist" doesn't?

Touche... I will try to avoid using that in the future. I really need a better word. Something between overbearing and fascist :) Nothing I come up with adequately conveys what I'm tryi

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[MightyYar]

Chopping bits off children does, in fact, matter. It clearly "matters" or we wouldn't be having this discussion. I'm not claiming that it doesn't matter - I'm claiming that it: (a) Doesn't seem to NEGATIVELY affect children and (b) In comparison to other choices that parents make for their children, it is pretty low on the list of influences.

I'm not claiming that there is a benefit from it, and I would probably not circumcise my own child - but I don't see any reason to strip the practice from people when no harm has been demonstrated.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[MightyYar]

in this case i cannot due to the fact that the CHILD who'd healthy tissue is being removed ISN'T GIVEN THE CHOICE. Children aren't given a choice in any other facet of their upbringing - how is this any different?

this is a moral and ethical issue that IS indeed backed up by qualified medical professionals and legislatures worldwide. Some medical professionals have spoken out against it, and others still practice it. Legislatures have no moral high ground - many legislatures allow far more brutal acts to occur. Neither point represents rigorous scientific study implicating harm.

In my eyes it IS legitimate to equate male circumcison with female circumcision (of the type the removes the healthy labia tissue) You don't see that one has been shown to be harmful and the other has not?

i see it as rank hypocrisy to say "i would not do this to my son" and yet promote the "right" of others to barbarically remove the healthy tissue of the penis in a CHILD. Is it rank hypocrisy to be pro-choice but chose not to have an abortion? Is it rank hypocrisy to support the right to own a gun without owning one yourself? How in the world is that hypocrisy?

The UN Commission on the former Yugoslavia defines circumcision as sexual assault and a human rights violationlink Do you read your own links? The only mention of circumcision is as an example of sexual assault on grown men:
"Men are also subject to sexual assault. They are forced to rape women and to perform sex acts on guards or each other. They have also been subjected to castration, circumcision or other sexual mutilation."

In Article 24.3 of the Convention on the Rights of the Childlink the phrase, "traditional procedures prejudicial to the health of children," refers to the practice of circumcision. No, it doesn't. Circumcision is not mentioned at all in that document, and you cannot prove that circumcision is "prejudicial to the health of children", which is my entire point.

Link A is an opinion piece written by a nurse. Link B is another opinion piece. I mean, in the conclusion it even states: "In my view, the best way to do justice to the rights of the child is to do no harm, to let it enjoy life in every aspect and to protect it against influences not asked for." In my view? Link C is yet another opinion piece.

You don't need to paste links to opinion pieces - I already know that there are others who agree with you. I'm claiming that they have the same flawed argument that you do, and they can't really prove any harm done by the procedure. I even agree that having the procedure done for no reason is not ethical. My contention is that tradition is a sufficient reason unless the procedure can be demonstrated as harmful.

The links you sent to the anti-circumcision website are similar. Their positions are very nicely laid out and presented, and they are pretty convincing. The problem is that they are drawing flawed conclusions from studies that are only tangentially associated with the issue of infant circumcision.

Provision of pain relief, however, cannot make an unethical procedure ethical . I don't have a problem with that statement (unless the ethical objection is pain). My problem is that I don't buy their rationale for why it is an unethical procedure. If you can't demonstrate harm, then who has been harmed?

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[letxa2000]

I don't think the US was hit that hard by 911, 2k deaths is a lot, but cannot be compared to 1M iraqi deaths.

I assume you mean the millions that died under Saddam, right? Because 1M haven't died in the violence since Saddam was removed from power. As I mentioned above, that number is not credible. You only weaken your own arguments when you use such fictitious numbers.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[MightyYar]

The ignorance of circumcised men as to the full potential of the human penis is irrelevant to my argument.

Right, and it is central to mine. I contend that if no harm can be shown, no harm was done. The sliding action of the foreskin is certainly different than no sliding, but why is it better? It's certainly the natural condition, but so what?

Why do you not feel the same for your son? Should he not have the opportunity to decide what he wants to do with his own penis?

Personally, I agree with you and will most likely not circumcise my son. I see little reason to take the risk, as there is no clear benefit and there is the potential for harm. If I had an overriding attachment to tradition, I might take the risk - but I don't really care if my son won't look like daddy (and granddad). There may be some social stigma attached to still having his foreskin, but there are enough Hispanics in this country now such that I don't think it will be an issue. (Hispanics don't typically circumcise IIRC). I'll have to learn to clean the thing, but it doesn't seem like a big deal (I can handle my much more anatomically complicated daughter!).

That said, I see little reason to strip this choice from parents. Just because it makes sense for ME doesn't mean it makes sense for everyone. If there were demonstrable harm, it would be different. But all I see is a difference, not a deficiency.

Since a majority of men in this country are circumcised, it is again unsurprising that pictures of circumcised men would be popular.

I agree. People prefer the circumcised penises because that is what they are accustomed to. There is nothing inherently prettier about a circumcised penis. I was just pointing out that the site's definition of "complication" was significantly broader than what the population-at-large would use. I'd like to see their numbers if you take away purely cosmetic "complications" from their numbers, but unsurprisingly they do not supply their raw data.

Many thousands of men across the world have attempted foreskin restoration with varying degrees of success.

I would never try to imply that circumcision hurts no one - I will freely recognize that a small number of individuals are truly mutilated by the procedure. It does not surprise me that a few thousand men have found each other out of the hundreds of millions that have been circumcised.

A large part of life is managing risk and balancing it with reward. The difference is that a parent that chooses to circumcise their child is directly and deliberately causing harm to their child

This is a point we disagree on. A parent is certainly not deliberately causing harm to their child (which I think you would probably agree), and I am arguing that there is no harm taking place at all unless their is an accident. That last part is where we disagree. We're looking at the same material and drawing different conclusions. I realize your disagreement runs deeper as well - moving into the ideological sphere.

I think you are not giving enough credit to the importance of tradition in people's lives. Without knowing you personally, it is hard to relate to you - but maybe Christmas is a happy time for you - maybe Thanksgiving. You like to put up the tree, you like to wrap the presents, whatever - substitute your favorite ritual here. Circumcision is an important ritual for certain people. I'll agree that it is not necessary (and even undesirable) to circumcise every boy in the US, but at the same time recognize that it has an important meaning to people of various persuasions. I hesitate very strongly to take away a tradition without a clear demonstration of harm.

Look at it another way - inoculations have saved innumerable lives. They clearly are beneficial. And yet, we have allowed parents to deny them to their children due to religious or ethical objections. In the case of inoculations, we are clearly putting tradition and parental preroga

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[mobydobius]

Touche... I will try to avoid using that in the future. I really need a better word. Something between overbearing and fascist I know its not a word, but i like to use the phrase "nosy-neighbor-ish" to describe people who want to foist essentially frivolous values on others.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[Taevin]

There may be some social stigma attached to still having his foreskin, but there are enough Hispanics in this country now such that I don't think it will be an issue. (Hispanics don't typically circumcise IIRC). I'll have to learn to clean the thing, but it doesn't seem like a big deal (I can handle my much more anatomically complicated daughter!).

There shouldn't be a social stigma regardless, but circumcision rates are approaching parity anyway. In fact in the Western US it is more common to be left intact. Of course neither are an issue until the country gets over the social stigma of being naked near other men.

I think you are not giving enough credit to the importance of tradition in people's lives. Without knowing you personally, it is hard to relate to you - but maybe Christmas is a happy time for you - maybe Thanksgiving. You like to put up the tree, you like to wrap the presents, whatever - substitute your favorite ritual here. Circumcision is an important ritual for certain people. I'll agree that it is not necessary (and even undesirable) to circumcise every boy in the US, but at the same time recognize that it has an important meaning to people of various persuasions. I hesitate very strongly to take away a tradition without a clear demonstration of harm.

Well if we're referring to a "ritual" in a religious sense, that's a separate issue and one I'm willing to give more leeway to (and I did mention that in my first reply). I'm much more concerned with institutionalizing leaving boys intact and leaving circumcision as an option only for those with medical necessity or religious obligations. In that case it should weed itself out over time as men become increasingly dissatisfied with their circumcisions due to being ever more "the odd man out." I have no problem with adults hacking themselves to bits over their religious beliefs but it's a bit harder to stomach when they do it to innocent children who have not made a conscious decision to follow the same path. In other words, believe what you want about the Divine or your body, but don't force those beliefs on everyone else.

Look at it another way - inoculations have saved innumerable lives. They clearly are beneficial. And yet, we have allowed parents to deny them to their children due to religious or ethical objections. In the case of inoculations, we are clearly putting tradition and parental prerogative ahead of the welfare of the child. In the case of circumcision, we don't even know that the child's welfare is impaired - so why be more strict than we are with inoculations?

Well again it's the difference between intentional and unintentional harm. In not immunizing a child there is a chance he will not catch the disease, just as there is a chance he won't injure himself at the playground. The chance of injury during circumcision is 100%, thus choosing to have the procedure be performed on your child is intentional injury.

Immunizations are further different since they play a larger role in the overall health of a society. The more people immunized against a disease, the less likely it is that there will be a significant outbreak since there are fewer potential carriers. This then even benefits those that are not immunized, for whatever reason. While parents can obtain exemptions for immunization, it is not a free pass. If a child is put in serious risk of harm due to a parent's refusal of immunization, child protection services will get involved and mandate the immunization and possibly charge the parent with medical neglect. All this is really quite similar to the First Law of Robotics, except in this case it's "A parent may not injure their child or, through inaction, allow their child to come to harm." A parent who circumcises their child is causing harm, while a parent who does not immunize may be allowing their child to come to harm. This is why we are (or should be) strict about both.

Absolutel

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[The One and Only]

I get what you are saying, but how far does this go? Why is the body treated like a temple when the mind is not? Parents get to indoctrinate their kids with their culture, language, diet, religion, etc. In comparison, the lopping off of the foreskin is nothing. Can you really say that your foreskin is more important than your culture or religion?

Attitudes can change. They still have a freedom of choice when it comes to their culture in their adult lives. Forcing a culture upon them by permanently modifying their physical body is a different story altogether. The line is between teaching and physical coercion. If you raise a boy a Muslim or a Jew, he may in later life reject his faith, eat pork, not live up to his religious obligations--but he has no way to grow back his foreskin.

There's something wrong with getting prosecuted 18 years after a "crime" that has no measurable effect on someone.

There most certainly is a measurable effect: the man is missing his foreskin.

In fact, I'm still having trouble with the concept of how someone's rights can be trampled without any measurable harm being inflicted upon them. I can't think of another example of where this is the case.

Here's one: Jon want to go out and buy some delicious bacon from the grocery store. Since Jon was raised Jewish, there's a new law that gives his parents the legal right to force him to eat kosher, even though he's a full grown man and not particularly religious anymore. So when he gets to the grocery store, they refuse to sell him bacon, having been given a notice from the government. Jon goes home with some kosher breakfast sausages instead. They're probably healthier for him, and he still enjoys them, although he'd prefer the bacon. No "measurable harm" done by your standard, but his rights are still trampled.

Circumcision is just like this, except instead of your breakfast, it's your penis that's at stake. Think about it.

I support the right of parents to pierce the ears of their baby, for instance.

Ear piercings can actually grow back. Foreskins can't.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[MightyYar]

If you raise a boy a Muslim or a Jew, he may in later life reject his faith, eat pork, not live up to his religious obligations--but he has no way to grow back his foreskin. He may reject his faith and superficially no longer be a Muslim, Jew, or what have you - but if you think the effects of his upbringing are then erased you are mistaken. The mind is permanently affected by upbringing - it cannot be made into the blank slate that it was at birth no matter what actions are taken, just as the foreskin cannot be made whole again. The mind is not nearly as elastic as you imply.

There most certainly is a measurable effect: the man is missing his foreskin. I meant, of course, no measurable negative effect... no proof of harm.

No "measurable harm" done by your standard, That's not true - you said he'd prefer bacon. So he's being denied a food that he prefers. It's a weird scenario, but if you insist on this angle I'd argue that it is more analogous to him never even knowing that bacon exists.

Ear piercings can actually grow back. Foreskins can't. Ear piercings can kind of grow back, but never 100%. The ear is forever mutilated. Ritual tattoos would be in the same category.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[The One and Only]

That's not true - you said he'd prefer bacon. So he's being denied a food that he prefers.

What if he'd prefer to have his foreskin back?

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[MightyYar]

I'm much more concerned with institutionalizing leaving boys intact and leaving circumcision as an option only for those with medical necessity or religious obligations. So long as this is done through education and not coercion, I'm fine with this. I also don't like the demonizing tone of these websites. They effectively call my parents ignorant for having me circumcised, when in fact they were just following the best medical advice of their day. As more and more doctors slowly heed the newest advice from the AMA, the trend will reverse. There's no need for laws or crazy enforcement schemes - it will all sort itself out.

In other words, believe what you want about the Divine or your body, but don't force those beliefs on everyone else. Parents are given pretty much free reign to indoctrinate their children as they see fit. This can be FAR more damaging than a circumcision. A broken mind is a lot more serious than a missing foreskin. Beliefs are "forced" on kids every single day by every single parent on earth. Minor physical alterations are not such a big deal in comparison when they are done as part of a tradition - be it getting an ear or nose piercing, a tattoo, or a circumcision. None of these things appears to be harmful down the road.

what gives parents the right to modify their child's body? It's part of the natural right that a parent has to integrate them into their society. If the society's standard includes some mutilation, and that mutilation isn't particularly harmful, then so be it. There'd be a lot of social stigma to endure if you were the only member of your group without a particular mutilation.

Is there to be no examination or reconsideration of that tradition for the course of human history? I think that traditions should constantly be examined and studied. Reconsideration should occur when harm is identified. I don't think that a tradition should be forcibly wiped out just because someone thinks that it is wrong - there should be some firm data to back this up. Getting back to circumcision, I think that there is some pretty firm data showing that performing a circumcision without anesthetic is harmful - at least in the very short term. For that reason, I think we SHOULD consider mandating the use of an anesthetic... and indeed, the AMA recommends its use.

Not to do so it just as insane as rejecting safety enhancements in building construction simply because "this is the way it has always been done." Hopefully I've conveyed to you by now that I don't advocate doing things that have been demonstrated to be harmful just because they are traditional. The problem I have with banning circumcision is that it has not been shown to be harmful. You can only demonstrate that a circumcised and uncircumcised male are different, not that one has been harmed.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[g0dlee]

Yes it will take time to achieve any results, but economic prosperity and theism are inversely related, and theism in places like Pakistan is really fucked up and needs to be eliminated or at least marginalized. I could not agree with you more!!!!! Let the country be and let them get "up to speed" on their own...shit, the rest of the world did, let them do it and leave them ALONE!!!!!!!!!!!!

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[MightyYar]

What if he'd prefer to have his foreskin back? How would he know what it's like to have a foreskin? I know how a Jewish person could still taste bacon and then prefer it. Someone who's never had a foreskin couldn't possibly know whether they'd prefer it or not.

Of course, a web site could pop up which convinces people that they are victims of a heinous mutilation - then they'll want it back because they've been convinced that they are missing out on something.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[The One and Only]

You're essentially saying "unless someone's desires make sense to me, they aren't morally relevant and shouldn't be respected." And you accuse others of fascism?

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[MightyYar]

You're essentially saying "unless someone's desires make sense to me, they aren't morally relevant and shouldn't be respected." And you accuse others of fascism? To some degree, you have my opinion characterized correctly. But I am not pretending to be the arbiter of what does and does not "make sense". I'm not the one creating tradition. I didn't circumcise anyone, probably never will. I'm not dictating anything to anyone - I can't be the fascist. Though, I am a fascist with my daughter. If she wants to eat a cupcake and it's almost dinner time - tough shit. If she wants to watch TV all the time - tough shit. Kids slowly gain rights as they get older - they are born with very few. Even if they ARE born with some "right to no harm" (and I believe they are), we as a society have not decided to enforce that right except in grossly negligent cases, which I would hope you wouldn't classify circumcision as.

In a society where it is perfectly legal to smoke a cigarette in your family room while seated next to your kids, I just find it hard to believe that you would find circumcision to be such a big deal. Are you going to start taking kids away from smokers? Last I checked, asthma was no more curable than missing foreskin, and a hell of a lot more severe. What about people who don't feed their kids all that well? I'm not talking gross malnutrition - I'm just talking about a lot of junk food so that the kids are pretty overweight and their IQ a few points lower... isn't that taking away some choice from the kids? Are you going to lock up a pregnant lady when she lights up a cigarette?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not condoning this behavior - just trying to point out how vanishingly minor circumcision is on the scale of problems children face during their early development. Even defining it as a problem is difficult to agree upon.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[Pax681]

ok, let's put it like this. you aer saying that you are pro-choice... fair enough. you say there is no harm in it and that's it's traditional. now the circumcision of infant actually is equatable to labial circumcision in female children in the is removes healthy tissue froma child without concent. So are you saying that this is also a good thing? or does you logic say that female circumcision is a bad thing but it's ok for little boys t be mutilated? it's the same thing by your logic. if it is immoral in one sex then it it follows that it is equally immoral in the other. unless it is a proceedure that is medically required to stop pain/suffering/disease then it has no ethical rationale. it is an aetshetic choice(the choice not being the childs choice either), platic surgery if you will. now watch that footage in the P&T...hear the screams of the poor wee laddie and tell me that didn't hurt him, that it didn't harm him and that it was perfectly ok? you didn't want it for your son so why wish this brutal inexcusable mutilation on anyone elses?

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[The One and Only]

Kids slowly gain rights as they get older - they are born with very few. Even if they ARE born with some "right to no harm" (and I believe they are), we as a society have not decided to enforce that right except in grossly negligent cases, which I would hope you wouldn't classify circumcision as.

Obviously this is true. But kids turn into adults who have more rights, and the rights of this ultimate adult that are in question here.

In a society where it is perfectly legal to smoke a cigarette in your family room while seated next to your kids, I just find it hard to believe that you would find circumcision to be such a big deal. Are you going to start taking kids away from smokers? Last I checked, asthma was no more curable than missing foreskin, and a hell of a lot more severe. What about people who don't feed their kids all that well? I'm not talking gross malnutrition - I'm just talking about a lot of junk food so that the kids are pretty overweight and their IQ a few points lower... isn't that taking away some choice from the kids? Are you going to lock up a pregnant lady when she lights up a cigarette? Don't get me wrong, I'm not condoning this behavior - just trying to point out how vanishingly minor circumcision is on the scale of problems children face during their early development.

I was a fat kid growing up, and my mom smoked, but I wasn't circumcised. Personally, I wouldn't give up my foreskin to change the other two things around, so I don't think it's minor at all. (I don't have asthma and my mom didn't smoke when she was pregnant with me--there's a special place in hell for mothers that do, though, and IIRC drinking during pregnancy is so strongly linked to FAS that it's legally considered child abuse in some places.)

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[@madeus]

Any medical benefits can still be gained through adult circumcision should the individual so choose, so it's still very much an option. Oh absolutely, I wouldn't want any legislation to prevent adults (say 16) being able to do elect to have it performed.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[MightyYar]

I have to admit some ignorance of female circumcision, but AFAIK there are rigorous scientific studies indicating harm in adults who have had female circumcision. Though, maybe predictably, this harm is not as bad as opponents suggest - and the issue is more complicated because there are many forms of female mutilation but only one common form of male mutilation.

now watch that footage in the P&T...hear the screams of the poor wee laddie and tell me that didn't hurt him, that it didn't harm him and that it was perfectly ok? I think that there is no question that circumcision hurts. For a while, there was debate about how much it hurt - but I think the consensus after studies were done is "a fucking lot". In light of this, I think that we should demand the use of anesthetic.

you didn't want it for your son so why wish this brutal inexcusable mutilation on anyone elses? For the same reason that someone can find abortion to be brutal yet accept it as a personal choice. I do not wish to inflict my views on others unless there is a sound justification. To me, that means some scientific evidence of harm.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[MightyYar]

I was a fat kid growing up, and my mom smoked All I can say is that, statistically, you are lucky. There are scientific studies that clearly demonstrate a connection between obesity/smoke exposure and health problems. There is no such study linking mental or physical health to circumcision. Not that people haven't conducted such studies - just that no link has been found. Personally, I think more study is needed because I find the existing studies to be fairly inadequate.

You are completely entitled to say that you wouldn't trade your foreskin for a healthier upbringing, but it is not a logical statement based on the scientific evidence available. Of course, it is a false choice anyway... medical advice these days is to avoid obesity, not smoke around your kids, and not practice circumcision. You can have your foreskin eat it... uh, nevermind, bad cliche "mutilation". :)

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[The One and Only]

All I can say is that, statistically, you are lucky. There are scientific studies that clearly demonstrate a connection between obesity/smoke exposure and health problems.

I wasn't that fat, and my mom made sure I wasn't too exposed to the smoke, so there are issues of degree here. Circumcision isn't a matter of degree. That's what makes it more clear-cut.

There is no such study linking mental or physical health to circumcision.

That's still beside the point, and if you haven't learned that already I don't know how to make it more clear to you.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[Pax681]

I have to admit some ignorance of female circumcision, but AFAIK there are rigorous scientific studies indicating harm in adults who have had female circumcision. Though, maybe predictably, this harm is not as bad as opponents suggest - and the issue is more complicated because there are many forms of female mutilation but only one common form of male mutilation.

i specified labial circumcision(the removal of the labia) as an equatable proceedure to male circumcision. it is reviled practically everywhere, and rightly so as it's a brutal mysoganistic mutilation. Now for you to suggest that "it's not as bad as opponets suggest" is quite frankly moronic and shows you up, a lot. a whole heck of a lot. i would suggest that, as i have stated before, it's a nasty assed brutal , unnecessary proceedure carried out wholly for a cultural aesthetic. i would hazard a guess that the girls this is done to don't find it particularly aesthetic and also that they have no choice in having it done. Now in this world where all rights are meant to be equal then it follows that male circumcision for non medical,cultural aesthetic reasons is just brutal and unethical and female circumcision. why don't you ask any women here on /. or in your home town how harmless female circumcision is? and also put forward your "logic" on the matter to them and see how long before they metaphorically remove you balls and hand them to you on a plate. your stance is morally,ethically and mdecially unjustified. Tradition doesn't cut it and the choice should be the the choice of the individual(in this case the child) not some social convention. Oh and btw children have a fair amount of rights under the international convention on human rights(i different type of convention i might add..lol)

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[MightyYar]

i specified labial circumcision(the removal of the labia) as an equatable procedure to male circumcision. It's not equitable. IIRC, there are studies tying labial circumcision to negative effects in women. The broad-based opposition that you point out should demonstrate this. Like I said, I'm way out of my knowledge sphere here and don't really know much about female circumcision.

Now for you to suggest that "it's not as bad as opponets suggest" is quite frankly moronic and shows you up, a lot. I saw a study which showed that circumcised females could still have an orgasm, despite the claims of certain opponents. It still seems like a procedure where the benefits are far outweighed by the harm. Like I said, though, I really don't know much about it. Please don't demonize me for my ignorance!

your stance is morally,ethically and mdecially unjustified. Are we still talking about female circumcision? My "stance" is against - though I have to admit that it has a weak basis. I've seen data indicating a demonstrable harm from female circumcision, so I can't see how it could be justified (if that data was reliable).

Tradition doesn't cut it and the choice should be the the choice of the individual(in this case the child) not some social convention. I still don't see why this ONE topic (infant circumcision) should be the exception. Social convention shapes just about every other facet of a child's upbringing, with effects much more important and - this is important - measurable. Sure, the missing skin is measurable - but can you measure any harm? Without measurable harm, how can harm be done?

Oh and btw children have a fair amount of rights under the international convention on human rights(i different type of convention i might add..lol) Children do have rights, and I don't think I disagree with anything that came out of that convention (I read it once and don't remember having any objections). But children don't have the same rights as adults, any way you slice it (bad pun intended).

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[MightyYar]

That's still beside the point, and if you haven't learned that already I don't know how to make it more clear to you. It's the entire basis of my point (well, one of two). You can't arrest someone for harming another human being if you can't prove harm. I do not count a "denial of choice" as harm unless something measurable was lost in the denial of that choice. Since there is no proof that having an uncircumcised penis is better than having an infant-circumcised penis, I fail to see how any harm has been inflicted.

I fully understand that you view the choice as a fundamental right, whereas I do not recognize that right.

My second point is that even if harm is inflicted, it seems to be so slight that it falls into the noise and is really not worth getting excited over while there is so much low-hanging fruit out there in the child development arena. Racism and bigotry is taught and inherited. Childhood obesity is at record levels. Asthma is on the rise. Allergies are up. There are real and significant problems that can and should be addressed. If you can't sue your parents for making you fat, which has real and serious health implications, you sure as hell shouldn't be able to sue them for cutting off your foreskin - which has never been tied to any kind of mental or physical harm.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[The One and Only]

It's the entire basis of my point (well, one of two). You can't arrest someone for harming another human being if you can't prove harm. I do not count a "denial of choice" as harm unless something measurable was lost in the denial of that choice. Since there is no proof that having an uncircumcised penis is better than having an infant-circumcised penis, I fail to see how any harm has been inflicted.

In order to be consistent with that principle, you'd have to agree with prohibiting bacon, as per my previous examples.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[MightyYar]

I have no problem with a parent prohibiting bacon. And if a community wants to ban the sale of bacon, that's fine too. After all, we regulate the sale of liquor and drugs.

Discriminating based on race or religion is another ball of wax.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[The One and Only]

I have no problem with a parent prohibiting bacon.

To their adult child? Look, we aren't getting anywhere. You almost had the point a few posts back, but you lost it.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[Pax681]

depending on the particular type of female circumcision depeds on whether orgasm is stil, possible. if it's labial then the clitorus is left intact, there foer orgasm will still be achievable. when the clitorus is removed it's a different story. it's monstrous and unethical in the extreme and IS equatable to male corcumcison(labial famale circumcision is at any roads) and it IS a nasty assed thing to do.. oh and for the record, just because children are not afforded the full rights of an adult doesn't mean they should not be afforded the respet ANY human being is. with respect , for me at any roads, includes respecting the fact that their body should stay intact as nature intended unless a medical condition dictates otherwise. even then i would discuss it with my son and talk it through qwith him. making sure he understand what is about to happen and if comfortable as possible with what is going on. just because a child is young, doesn't mean if they are given all the information they need in a way that they can follow and understand, doesn't mean they cannot then have an informed opinion and thus can, with the HELP of a parent have informed consent! Ethically in a medical sense the doctors relationship revolves round the doctor patient relationship. when with a child then it is with the child and NOT the parent. if a parent asks for a proceedure that is religiously motivated or refuse medical treatment for religious purposes then in america i believe this has to be respected de to the constitution. this is nt the case i teh UK as a clurt order can be applied for and the treatment can be continued or refused on the ground of th best interests of the child

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[Pax681]

i am not a doctor but two of my close cousins are and one lectures in medical ethics at St Andrews University, the other is a consultant paediatrician and Sick kids hospital here in Edinburgh

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[MightyYar]

I'll have to take your word for it. If you say that there is no medical evidence that labial circumcision is harmful, then that's fine. I'm not very familiar with any of it. But I'm very confused - is it horrible and monstrous with documented harmful effects, or is it a cosmetic procedure with no demonstrable harmful effects... you seem to indicate both.

Why are we starting in on female circumcision? I have to bow to your larger familiarity with it - I really don't know anything about it and am not equipped to debate it.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[MightyYar]

To their adult child? No. But if the community standard is "no bacon", then I have no problem with restricting ALL adult "children". I just don't think that you can pick out a specific person to to race or religion - but that's a completely separate ideology. There are in fact countries where the law that applies to you differs by what religion you are. For instance, in Malaysia, Muslim girls cannot wear skirts under force of law but non-Muslim girls are frequently seen in mini-skirts. I disagree with this philosophy on the basis that the government should be secular, but it is really a separate discussion.

To put it another way, a society often has traditions which limit choice. There's no "harm" in women going topless, and yet we force women to cover their breasts. It is the same in Muslim countries, only a difference in degree. There are many, many instances where we simply override a person's free will through the force of law.

And I hesitate to even bring it up, but this issue of infant rights even runs over into the abortion issue. When do the "rights" of a child begin? I submit that "birth" is just as arbitrary an event as any other - the main difference being that it is easy to define. I also submit that rights accumulate over time, and those rights really are determined by the tradition of a particular society. There is no question that a newly-fertilized egg has very few rights, no matter what side of the abortion debate you are on. The only right argued for is the "right to no harm", which is hotly debated as the rights of the mother are weighed against the rights of the fetus. This is really no different - you are just moving the arbitrary line from fertilization to birth, but the moral argument is very, very similar.

I have no idea where you stand on abortion. As you may have guessed, I am pro-choice - though I find the use of abortion as a form of birth control to be distasteful since there are so many people looking for infants to adopt. Your argument against circumcision aligns with a pro-life mindset. If you are not pro-life, I'd like to hear why you think your arguments about circumcision do not apply to a fetus?

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[The One and Only]

Circumcision is something that ultimately affects an adult, abortion and infanticide aren't. I don't have a settled opinion about either abortion or infanticide, nor are the rights of the infant qua infant even relevant to my argument. Nothing I'm saying is getting through to you here, so it's best that we end this discussion.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[MightyYar]

How in the world does ending the life of a person not affect a person? I thought one of your core arguments was that making an irreversible decision was infringing on the rights of the infant because it would limit their choice as an adult? Isn't ending the life of someone significantly WORSE?

But like I said, I hesitate to bring it up because no one wants to discuss it dispassionately. So if you want to avoid it, that's fine.

I see your reasoning. You are not considering what rights an infant has, just the rights of the eventual adult. I disagree with that logic, because I do not believe an adult has a right to all possible choices. Taken to the extreme, it would make parenting a simple custodial job of the state - do what the state has decided will maximize your child's future choices. And even then, you'd still have to pick a culture and educational regimen to follow and the brain would be physically set on that. I don't see that philosophy as workable when carried out to it's fullest.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[Pax681]

I'll have to take your word for it. If you say that there is no medical evidence that labial circumcision is harmful

i never said that at all, as they say here in Scotland, you are talking utter bollocks!

But I'm very confused - is it horrible and monstrous with documented harmful effects, or is it a cosmetic procedure with no demonstrable harmful effects... you seem to indicate both.

i don't indicate both , i was comparing YOUR standard to it. YOU said it was a harmless thing. you are not equipped to debate any side of the circumcision argument at all is you cannot equate the monstrosity of male and female circumcision. you are now scraping the barrel to avoid the comparison YOU made by sayng female circumcision was a harmless thing... which indeed you did. MUPPET

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[MightyYar]

i never said that at all, as they say here in Scotland, you are talking utter bollocks! My contention is that you cannot prove that male circumcision is harmful.

YOU made by sayng female circumcision was a harmless thing... No, I said that I thought it was harmful. I don't know enough about female circumcision to compare it to male circumcision, but my understanding is that there is scientific data showing that female circumcision is harmful whereas there is no such data for male circumcision. In this entire thread, no one has been able to point to a single scientific study correlating any negative health effects to male infant circumcision.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[Pax681]

you have been pointed to PLENTY of links, both medical and ethical and you "poo-poo" them. you claim that statements and professional opinion by medical professionals, medical associations and ethical bodies all to be pseudo science.. why not just stick you fingers in your ears as usual and shout "blah blah blah i can't hear you" as usual. you'd make a very good religious fundementalist indeed with that guff. With regards to female circumcision i compared labial removal to removal of the foreskin and you said

I have to admit some ignorance of female circumcision, but AFAIK there are rigorous scientific studies indicating harm in adults who have had female circumcision. Though, maybe predictably, this harm is not as bad as opponents suggest

that is a direct qoute.... remember that???? try telling that to little girls who have had that done. the other tyope of female circumcision is removing both the labia and the clitorus which would be equatable to removal of both the foreskin and the glans.. nasty business indeed. BUT even just labial removal is outlawed in pretty much every civilised society and THAT IS directly equatable to male circumcision....... and you stated, as quited above that you didn't recko that

this harm is not as bad as opponents suggest

i suggest your utter failure to grasp ethics , morals, simple rights and wrongs is jaded by your dogmatic and beligerant defence of the indefensible as what you said there, is that dissmissive little "poo-poo" is completely WRONG AND CANOT BE DEFENDED!

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[MightyYar]

both medical and ethical and you "poo-poo" them I did no such thing. I thoroughly debunked the medical "proof", with no one even trying to defend my criticisms. The ethical links were very interesting, but were opinion papers of people with whom I disagree.

you claim that statements and professional opinion by medical professionals, medical associations and ethical bodies all to be pseudo science.. Again, I did no such thing. I agree 100% with the AMA's stance on circumcision, which I'll remind you is that it is medically unnecessary and if you chose to do it, should be done with anesthesia. The AMA does not condemn circumcision - nor do most national medical boards.

Though, maybe predictably, this harm is not as bad as opponents suggest Just because it is not as bad as opponents suggest does not mean that I support it. Opponents will often paint something in a worse light than it actually is, and I found some opponents suggesting that female circumcision removes the ability of women to experience sexual pleasure. I also found a study that directly contradicted this claim. Does this make female circumcision harmless? No. Does it mean that SOME (not all) opponents are exaggerating a bit, yes.

That said, I really am not up to speed on the issue and will freely admit that my characterization could be completely wrong.

try telling that to little girls who have had that done. Why are you harping on me about this? I've stated that I'm opposed to it - but that is based on the limited knowledge that I have. To be honest, female circumcision is simply not an issue in the US like it is in Europe because our immigrant mix is different. I just don't know much about it.

So go ahead and twist my words to demonize me with an issue I know very little about if you must, but it has nothing to do with male infant circumcision - which I still contend is both not harmful and is small potatoes compared to other issues in the child development arena.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[The One and Only]

How in the world does ending the life of a person not affect a person? I thought one of your core arguments was that making an irreversible decision was infringing on the rights of the infant because it would limit their choice as an adult? Isn't ending the life of someone significantly WORSE?

Maybe. On the other hand, killing an infant ensures that the adult never comes to exist, and (arguably) there is no one whose rights could be violated. Simply cutting off parts of the infant will violate the rights of the adult that comes to exist. There are delicate issues of personhood and identity over time involved here, and I'm not strongly enough committed on those questions to even have an opinion. I avoid it because there's little point in discussing something I don't have an opinion on.

I see your reasoning. You are not considering what rights an infant has, just the rights of the eventual adult. I disagree with that logic, because I do not believe an adult has a right to all possible choices.

Neither do I. I argue that choices about things like basic health, bodily integrity, and so forth are privileged. You, on the other hand, have no particular respect for freedom of choice at all, so it's no wonder we keep talking past each other.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[MightyYar]

You, on the other hand, have no particular respect for freedom of choice at all, so it's no wonder we keep talking past each other. I wouldn't go quite that far. I'm concerned about freedom of choice, but only when the loss of a choice would constitute demonstrable harm. Even then, I don't support knocking down someone's door when they aren't doing every single thing "right" while raising a kid. I definitely grant a lot of leeway when it comes to raising a kid. I think we should try to educate parents about the right thing to do, but we shouldn't intervene unless they cross an (admittedly fuzzy) line.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[The One and Only]

I wouldn't go quite that far. I'm concerned about freedom of choice, but only when the loss of a choice would constitute demonstrable harm.

So in other words, you aren't concerned about freedom of choice, only "demonstrable harm". I argue that's a poor standard.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[MightyYar]

You also favor limits on freedom of choice. We have different limits, that is all. You cannot possibly grant an adult 100% freedom of choice over all matters. Your solution to this dilemma is to draw a neat line between physical and mental, whereas mine is to treat physical and mental as the same thing. That is, I believe that the brain can be physically changed by a person's upbringing and this is no different morally than physically changing other parts of the body. Since my standard can no longer be "don't make any physical changes", my standard becomes "make no harmful physical changes".

The notion that the brain changes physically and that these changes occur predominantly in childhood is backed by pretty good science. An easy example is how hard it is for someone raised in Japan to grasp English "r" and "l" use, no matter how much training they receive. This is because they are not exposed to some of the sounds we use in every day speech and the brain never develops the ability to distinguish these sounds. If you raise a Japanese child in an English-speaking or multi-lingual environment, this problem never develops.

Thus, raising a child in a Japanese-speaking environment seriously limits the adult child's future ability to speak another language. Whether this constitutes "harm" would be up for much debate, but it certainly is a limit in choice directed by parenting and cultural tradition.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[The One and Only]

You also favor limits on freedom of choice.

That's true, since it's logically impossible to maximize it.

Your solution to this dilemma is to draw a neat line between physical and mental, whereas mine is to treat physical and mental as the same thing. That is, I believe that the brain can be physically changed by a person's upbringing and this is no different morally than physically changing other parts of the body. Since my standard can no longer be "don't make any physical changes", my standard becomes "make no harmful physical changes".

My solution is a little more nuanced than that. Circumcision meets a lot of criteria: it's completely irreversible, it violates the integrity of the body, it's completely unnecessary, and it is harmful.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[MightyYar]

Circumcision meets a lot of criteria: it's completely irreversible, it violates the integrity of the body, it's completely unnecessary, and it is harmful. I agree that it is completely irreversible, but argue that so are certain aspects of brain development (as well as other physiology, such as height or bone development). I also agree that it is unnecessary.

I admit that I do not value the "integrity of the body" as a central right. I believe that change can be good, bad, or neutral (or even a mixed bag), and that change alone is not bad. This is probably our largest point of disagreement.

And finally, as you well know by now, I dispute that you can prove that it is harmful :) If I thought it were, our opinions on the matter would largely align, even if our rationale would not.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[The One and Only]

I admit that I do not value the "integrity of the body" as a central right. I believe that change can be good, bad, or neutral (or even a mixed bag), and that change alone is not bad. This is probably our largest point of disagreement.

I don't either, although I'm more inclined than you to say that integrity of the body should largely be left up to the owner/inhabitor of said body rather than parents/government/culture/etc.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[WhatAmIDoingHere]

No proof of infant circumcision hurting in the long run? How about when the kid realizes his genitals were mutilated and can NEVER be how they were supposed to be?

I love how you people dismiss this going "ZOMG MOAR IMPURTENT DINGZ LAWL" like this isn't an issue that needs to be addressed. Sure, it's not going to change the world in general, but for the first kid who is protected from this "Well, my father did it to me and his father to him, and his to him" bullshit by LAW will be thankful that we talked about this topic.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[MightyYar]

How about when the kid realizes his genitals were mutilated and can NEVER be how they were supposed to be? "Supposed to be?" You mean natural? Yeah, because nature is kind and we should never deviate from "her" will.

Lucky they're not offended by the Bible

[Anonymous Coward]

Thousands of years of getting offended by the same thing over and over again every time it is republished might have made them look a bit whiny.

Re:Lucky they're not offended by the Bible

[computechnica]

I wonder if they have blocked this site: Skeptics annotated Quran

Re:Lucky they're not offended by the Bible

[megazork]

Great site! Thanks!

Morocco tried to block YouTube once...

[interactive_civilian]

Morocco tried to block YouTube about a year and a half ago, because there were videos either making fun of the King or criticizing him.

The block didn't last long because so many people were (figuratively) up in arms about it. Given the amount of "non-offensive" material (i.e. in this case, material not criticizing the king), the government realized their own stupidity and realized it would be better to have a placated populous than risk unrest over such a small thing.

Are there parallels here? Possibly not, because I guess the blocks are for different reasons. However, it's not like a large amount of YouTube is about the comic or other representations of Mohammed, so... It will be interesting to see if the people cry out and how the government responds...

Re:Morocco tried to block YouTube once...

[AKAImBatman]

I'm pretty sure that was Turkey, not Morocco. I remember because quite a few blog posts in Turkey syndicated my anti-blocking instructions. I'm probably a fugitive there for having a minor amount of technical knowledge. :-P

Re:Morocco tried to block YouTube once...

[wenchmagnet]

I am posting from within Pakistan, youtube is accessible again.

Re:Morocco tried to block YouTube once...

[Bootvis]

I'm pretty sure no one insulted the Turkish king because Turkey is a republic. I think it is quite possible both countries blocked Youtube at some moment. (and of course stopped blocking after realizing this is a bad idea)

Re:Morocco tried to block YouTube once...

[jadm]

It was Thailand.

Re:Morocco tried to block YouTube once...

[wenchmagnet]

And gone again...!

Re:Morocco tried to block YouTube once...

[Khalid]

Morocco did also block Youtube, although other countries like Thailand blocked did too :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_Morocco

Now Morocco is again distinguishing itself by kidnapping and torturing for 48h and then putting in Jail for 3 yars a computer ingineer for the simple fac of faking a king's brother profile in Facebook, story here : http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/02/23/facebook.sentence.ap/index.html

Re:Morocco tried to block YouTube once...

[sakdoctor]

Actually you are both right,

Turkey http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6427355.stm
Morocco http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/6702973.stm
and
Thailand http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/6528303.stm

all blocked it at some point

Re:Morocco tried to block YouTube once...

[jack69]

I'm pretty sure it was Morocco, because... I was there. Didn't last long though, unlike their blocking of Google earth which is still in effect, even if most of the info is still visible on Google maps. Go figure...

Re:Morocco tried to block YouTube once...

[roguetrick]

Turkey is a secular democratic republic, but someone on youtube insulted the founder of the republic and the site got blocked for two days. Censorship is legal, however, for such a progressive sounding government. Look up "turkey" and "article 301".

The offending content

[broothal]

SILENCE!! I KIIILL YOU

Re:The offending content

[Zann]

I laughed out load at the video. And I'm a Muslim. All this before Pakistan blocks YouTube, even.

I'm supposed to feel bad now, but I don't.

Islam - Always Used to Getting its Own Way

[Apple Acolyte]

As a religion Islam is the petulant, spoiled bully child on the playground - always accustomed to getting what it wants. If it doesn't get its own way, it resorts to acts of barbaric aggression.

Re:Islam - Always Used to Getting its Own Way

[Opportunist]

Ain't just Islam, Christianity (or take any religion of your liking) would react the same way if it had the political backing.

The current situation dictates that a lot of oil is in the hands of people who could get a tad bit upset if you don't let them have what they want, at least in terms of free speech. Free speech isn't listed at the NY stock exchange, so it's worth less than losing business with such countries.

Re:Islam - Always Used to Getting its Own Way

[RobotRunAmok]

As a religion Islam is the petulant, spoiled bully child on the playground - always accustomed to getting what it wants. If it doesn't get its own way, it resorts to acts of barbaric aggression.

naah, it's worse than that. It gets its own way, in countries throughout the world where there is Sharia. Jeez, how many religions would like to have the government make laws in lock-step with their teachings? All of 'em! But Islam is not content with the countries whose laws and mores it already directly affects, it wants to control the 21st Century nations as well.

But I'm a glass-half-full kinda guy, so let's look at the bright side: There is no better incentive for the West to pursue alternate energy sources than the opportunity that represents to stem the tide of Islamic Imperialism.

Re:Islam - Always Used to Getting its Own Way

[Apple Acolyte]

To a certain extent you're right about Christianity but wrong about religions in general. Christianity hasn't acted that way in hundreds of years. Such behavior is condoned to a much greater extent in Islamic belief, where the manifest goal is global domination (institution of Sharia in all countries). Christianity teaches its followers to spread their faith, but the core message contained therein is much more peaceful. Judaism commands the nation of Israel to impose Jewish sovereignty over the land of Israel but only there and nowhere else.

Re:Islam - Always Used to Getting its Own Way

[pha7boy]

Ain't just Islam, Christianity (or take any religion of your liking) would react the same way if it had the political backing
It does react the same way - just look at the way Christian groups react to various political things from abortion, to gay marriage, to pre-marital sex, to competition from other religions.

Re:Islam - Always Used to Getting its Own Way

[morari]

Same religion, different prophet.

Re:Islam - Always Used to Getting its Own Way

[CRCulver]

There is no better incentive for the West to pursue alternate energy sources than the opportunity that represents to stem the tide of Islamic Imperialism.

That the Muslim communities in the Netherlands, France, Sweden etc. have been so easily radicalized suggests that the barbarians are already inside the gates. Stemming the tide of Islamic imperialism means not only reducing the power of Middle Eastern theocracies (mainly Saudi Arabia), but ensuring that immigrant communities in the EU assimilate as well.

Re:Islam - Always Used to Getting its Own Way

[Azuma Hazuki]

Normally I'd post a paragraph or so on how Islam is the way it is because it's a polity, not just a religion, and that Christianity would be just as bad if it hadn't domesticated itself through centuries of success, but I'm really getting sick of all this religiously-motivated bullshit. So I will just say this:

Dear Muslims: Let's make a deal. We will stop offending you by making fun of your prophet when you stop offending us by blowing up our people and buildings. Until then, you can bite my shiny metal ass. Love, Hazuki.

Re:Islam - Always Used to Getting its Own Way

[cbart387]

Emphasis mine...

Ain't just Islam, Christianity (or take any religion of your liking) would react the same way if it had the political backing It does react the same way - just look at the way Christian groups react to various political things from abortion, to gay marriage, to pre-marital sex, to competition from other religions. Notice what you did. You went from comparing the religion to the groups. My point is, don't blame the religion for the reactions of individuals.

In my opinion, that attitude displayed by Christians is counter to Christianity. Assuming you believe in Christianity, God gives us (humans) a free will. Because of this, I don't believe there should be laws that constrain an individual when they're not infringing on other people. So, gay marriage, to pre-marital sex, to competition from other religions, go far it. Abortion is a tough one though, and frankly I stay away from it because it's too complicated of an issue to say I'm absolutely certain either way. There's so many mitigating factors...

Gay marriage is a funny one because there's the religious/spiritual aspect of it (for some people) and the legalistic part of it (the state recognizing it). I don't think that the legalistic part of it should be affected the religious part. You don't have to get married in a church so why should the state stop people from getting financial benefits for living together. Who cares if you don't believe in it or not. It's not hurting you.

Close-minded Christians make the rest of us look bad, and they tend to be more vocal. :/

Re:Islam - Always Used to Getting its Own Way

[jdfox]

The Muslim communities of the Netherlands, France, Sweden have been radicalized? The whole community, in each country? Where did you read that?

Re:Islam - Always Used to Getting its Own Way

[CRCulver]

Problems with violence among Muslim immigrants in Parisian suburbs and in Malmö are well-documented. Nowhere did I claim the whole community was radicalized, but whenever violence flares up its obvious that there are already enough people who refuse to assimilate to cause considerable problems for social stability.

Re:Islam - Always Used to Getting its Own Way

[Troed]

Problems with violence among Muslim immigrants in Parisian suburbs and in Malmö are well-documented

Yes, that lie seems to be commonly published in the US. You might want to ask yourself why people are lying about it though - who has to gain from it?

(I live in Malmö)

Re:Islam - Always Used to Getting its Own Way

[jdfox]

>Nowhere did I claim the whole community was radicalized

You might not have meant to, but you did. Both here and here, you referred to entire religious communities, or a monolithic "they". Do you not see the danger of this habit? As a member of the Christian community, do you wish to be included in the "they" of Timothy McVey, George Habash, August Kreis, the Army of God, the Lord's Resistance Army, etc.?

Re:Islam - Always Used to Getting its Own Way

[Chandon Seldon]

Christianity hasn't acted that way in hundreds of years.

You're talking about the religion that bombs abortion clinics, right?

Radical totalitarian Islam actually has entire countries where it has free reign. Radical totalitarian Christianity does not. That prevents Christianity from openly stoning adulterers and such. That doesn't mean that there aren't radical Christans who would do that if they could get away with it.

Christianity teaches its followers to spread their faith, but the core message contained therein is much more peaceful.

And Islam is the "religion of peace". Neither religion is purely peaceful or purely violent, and members of either religion claiming that theirs is "more peaceful" are worthy of distrust at best.

Re:Islam - Always Used to Getting its Own Way

[CRCulver]

Yes, that lie seems to be commonly published in the US.

I'm not in the U.S. I'm based in the EU. And when administrators of police and ambulance services tell the press there are certain areas of the city they no longer go to because of violence against non-Muslims from the Muslims living there, it's hard to see how that could be a distortion.

Re:Islam - Always Used to Getting its Own Way

[wanderingknight]

THANK YOU for being the first sensate person to respond to this discussion.

Re:Islam - Always Used to Getting its Own Way

[amorri09]

You facts about McVey is disengenous...If you , in fact do, believe in the Christian bible and concider yourself a Christian you have no further to look then the old testement for the warrants of genocide, ionfanticide, murder, rape, adulrty and purgery...And teh new testemetn is a perfect forground to embolden adn promote a fascist dictatorship mindset.... Its not a matter of "interpretation" its a matter of fact which is right there within those books in both black and white... It says to stone and kill and murder, it depicts a God who condones these immoral and unethical judgements, based on their own UNQUESTIONABLE word....this si dictotorship..... "Worship me or die".... And the same goes for, as ive indicated by the old testement, the Jewish God Yawhe and the God depcited in the Quron, Allah... It IS a "THEY" kind of arguemnt. It is so because if you dont accept what the texts say and dont folow all that the religion says then YOU ARENT PART OF IT, you are part of your own addaptive belief.... the peope who believe in either of the three great montheistic faithes CAN all be grouped together... Ask any Catholic, which i was until i reached the age of reason, if they REALLY belive in the virgin birth.....Of course they dont , nobody who wasnt delusional or retarded would, so tehn to what extent are they really a catholic? they arent...

Re:Islam - Always Used to Getting its Own Way

[randamu]

Christianity hasn't acted that way in hundreds of years.

You're talking about the religion that bombs abortion clinics, right?

Uh, no, a handful of Christians bombed abortion clinics. No Christian church or theology with significant number of adherents advocates bombing abortion clinics. On the other hand, mainstream Muslim clerics do openly advocate violence against non-Muslims.

Re:Islam - Always Used to Getting its Own Way

[Troed]

The distortion is that it has anything to do with religion. It hasn't. You might want to ask yourself why you so readily believe people who're basically doing the same thing as some did towards jews just a few decades ago.

Re:Islam - Always Used to Getting its Own Way

[Chandon Seldon]

No Christian church or theology with significant number of adherents advocates bombing abortion clinics. On the other hand, mainstream Muslim clerics do openly advocate violence against non-Muslims.

And a Muslim would say that no Muslim group with a significant following advocates your favorite example of extremist Muslim terrorism, but that mainstream Christian clerics openly advocate turning the entire middle east into a "glass parking lot".

Again, religion is a really easy way to rationalize violence - and to expect no violence from *any* ideology that preaches "we're right, you're wrong, you have to follow our rules in your country" is absurd.

Cover Story

[pinkocommie]

The danish thing has been going on for a while, it took them this long to ban it for that?
Otoh there were elections a few days ago and there were multiple clips about rigging that happened in the election.
Forward to 1:20 or just search for pakistan rigging
What's the more probable cause for the ban?

Re:Cover Story

[siriusnova]

Yes I have to agree with you on this.

As a Pakistani who has spent considerable amount of time in and out of the country, this blocking has absolutely nothing to do with "blasphemous content".

The reality is that right now in Pakistan there are serious allegations of vote rigging going around, the Military Junta in its usual dictatorial form has to find a cover story to block news about any vote rigging as they already do the same with the regular news media. They blocked the biggest Pakistani News TV being broadcast from Dubai, GEO TV, a few months ago over the news station airing reports critical of the current government.

I really doubt 90% of Pakistanis even care about the cartoons, this is really an excuse to hide under their real motivations, ie vote rigging.

There are tons of websites that can be stated as "blasphemous" however none of them are blocked, so why block youtube, especially at this point in time.

Reeks of a CYA cover story to me.

Re:Cover Story

[mapkinase]

"right now" "there are serious allegations of vote rigging going around" I thought opposition have won. That would be an interesting case of vote rigging.

Dark ages are all theirs if they want

[Anonymous Coward]

I think if they're so hellbent on censoring everything that offends their religion and interrupting everything else that matters in the process, they are welcome to throw their civilization back centuries behind the rest of the world.

Re:Dark ages are all theirs if they want

[computechnica]

They would be happy to go back to the dark ages, but want to take you and the rest the World with em 'cause Mohamed said So!
The Quran, virtually on every page, is a manifesto for religious intolerance. -- Sam Harris 1. Don't bother to warn the disbelievers. Allah has blinded them. Theirs will be an awful doom. 2:6 2. Allah has sickened their hearts. A painful doom is theirs because they lie. 2:10 3. Allah has blinded the disbelievers. 2:17-18 4. A fire has been prepared for the disbelievers, whose fuel is men and stones. 2:24 5. Disbelievers will be burned with fire. 2:39, 2:90 6. Allah stamped wretchedness upon the Jews because they killed the prophets and disbelieved Allah's revelations. 2:61 7. Only those Jews and Christians who convert to Islam will be rewarded with heaven. 2:62 8. Allah turned the Sabbath-breaking Jews into apes. 2:65-66 9. If you believe in only part of the Scripture, you will suffer in this life and go to hell in the next. 2:85 10. Allah has cursed them for their unbelief. 2:88 11. The curse of Allah is on disbelievers. 2:89 12. Jews are the greediest of all humankind. They'd like to live 1000 years. But they are going to hell. 2:96 13. Allah is an enemy to the disbelievers. 2:98 14. Only evil people are disbelievers. 2:99 15. For disbelievers is a painful doom. 2:104 16. For unbelievers: ignominy in this world, an awful doom in the next. 2:114 17. "And thou wilt not be asked about the owners of hell-fire." (They are the non-muslims.) 2:119 18. Disbelievers are losers. 2:121 19. Allah will leave the disbelievers alone for a while, but then he will compel them to the doom of Fire. 2:126 20. "Who forsaketh the religion of Abraham save him who befooleth himself?" Cited in the Hamas Charter (Article 27) to condemn the idea of a secular state. 2:130 21. Those who reject the proofs, are accursed of Allah. 2:159 22. Those who die disbelievers, are cursed by Allah, angels, and men. 2:161 23. The doom of the disbelievers will not be lightened. 2:162 24. They will not emerge from the Fire. 2:167 25. Disbelievers will be deaf, dumb, and blind. 2:171 26. Those who hide the Scripture will have their bellies eaten with fire. Theirs will be a painful doom. 2:174 27. How constant are they in their strife to reach the Fire! 2:175 28. Believers must retaliate. Those who transgress will have a painful doom. 2:178 29. Kill disbelievers wherever you find them. If they attack you, then kil them. Such is the reward of disbelievers. (But if they desist in their unbelief, then don't kill them.) 2:191-2 30. Fight them until "religion is for Allah." 2:193 31. Those who fail in their duty to Allah are proud and sinful. They will all go to hell. 2:206 32. War is ordained by Allah, and all Muslims must be willing to fight, whether they like it or not. 2:216 33. Those who die in their disbelief will burn forever in the Fire. 2:217 34. Intermarriage is forbidden. 2:221 35. The disbelievers, they are the wrong-doers. 2:254 36. Disbelievers worship false gods. The will burn forever in the Fire. 2:257 37. Allah does not guide disbelievers. 2:264 38. "Give us victory over the disbelieving folk." 2:286 39. Those who disbelieve the revelations of Allah, theirs will be a heavy doom. 3:4 40. Those who disbelieve will be fuel for the Fire. 3:10 41. Those who disbelieve shall be overcome and gathered unto Hell. 3:12 42. Non-muslims will be punished by Allah for their nonbelief. 3:19 43. Those who disbelieve, promise them a painful doom. 3:21 44. "They [Christians and Jews] say: The Fire will not touch us save for a certain number of days. That which they used to invent hath deceived them regarding their religion." (The Fire will burn them forever.) 3:24 45. Let not the believers take disbelievers for their friends in preference to believers. 3:28 46. Allah loveth not the disbelievers. 3:32 47. Allah will punish

Re:Dark ages are all theirs if they want

[Dr. Cody]

Someday, hundreds--or perhaps thousands--of years from now, members of some future religious organization will gather and pray at the foot of your WAILING WALL OF TEXT .

Re:Dark ages are all theirs if they want

[computechnica]

my
bad

Re:WHY IS THIS IN POLITICS????!!!

[Creepy Crawler]

It's cause we own the middle east.

They just dont know it ;)

Re:WHY IS THIS IN POLITICS????!!!

[Quiet_Desperation]

There's no need to get all religious about it. ;-)

Re:WHY IS THIS IN POLITICS????!!!

[Shikaku]

Youtube is in the USA. Owned by Google to be more precise. They are banning something from USA politics.

mTube

[pha7boy]

Welcome to mTube. To upload videos, please make sure that all models are wearing mTube approved burqas. Religious discussion are to adhere to Quran aproved topics. For information on how to carry out stoning, please see the miscellaneous section.

Re:mTube

[Quiet_Desperation]

Pissed off at your sister? Commit a crime. You'll get a trivial sentence while your sister gets gang raped.

Wait... what's that? All cultures are of equal value? Oh, OK. Sorry.

Re:mTube

[pla]

Pissed off at your sister? Commit a crime. You'll get a trivial sentence while your sister gets gang raped. Wait... what's that? All cultures are of equal value? Oh, OK. Sorry.

Hey now, just because we Western civilized folk don't consider it okay to rape someone's sister for their petty crimes, doesn't make our view right and their wrong.

Why, no doubt raping innocent women acts as quite a deterrent to these upstanding young lads, who uh frequently honor-kill their own sisters for looking at a boy the wrong way in public (the wanton whores!) anyway.

So really, lets show a bit more tolerance for the Religion of Peace. Why can't we all just get along, Muslims and Dhimmi alike?

Re:mTube

[JimBobJoe]

please make sure that all models are wearing mTube approved burqas

I saw the movie Persepolis yesterday. There's a scene where a bunch of people are in a college art class, sitting at easels with pencils in hand, trying to draw a woman who is covered head to toe in a black cape (but with a veil so that you can see her face. The burqa doesn't show the face.) The main character laments that she's "the same from every angle" and that all she can do is draw her nose.

Your joke about mtube may be a lot closer to the truth than one would think.

Re:Screw Mohammed.

[rustalot42684]

Fuck you. Banning Youtube is stupid, but that doesn't mean that Islam itself is bad. There are lots of tolerant Muslim people out there.

Hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

Dirka Dirka Youtube Mohammad Jihad

Time to send in Team America.

Re:Hmm

[Wonko the Sane]

Time to send in Team America.

We're gonna need a montage

End Religion and End Human Suffering!

[erroneus]

Okay, so maybe it wouldn't end human suffering, but it would certainly remove about 90% of the motivation for mistrust and a lot more. Some say religion is just the "given" excuse for violence and oppression. But I hold that the majority of people who claim they are killing and oppression for "god" really believe in what they are doing.

Religion is also a large part of the reason for suppression of knowledge, increases in fear and the idea that "ideas are dangerous."

But once you subtract 'religion' and 'morals' from the minds of many, you'll find they actually don't know how to think.

Re:End Religion and End Human Suffering!

[morari]

Then mankind would have become as the Great Old Ones; free and wild and beyond good and evil, with laws and morals thrown aside and all men shouting and killing and revelling in joy. Then the liberated Old Ones would teach them new ways to shout and kill and revel and enjoy themselves, and all the earth would flame with a holocaust of ecstasy and freedom.

Re:End Religion and End Human Suffering!

[CRCulver]

Religion is also a large part of the reason for suppression of knowledge, increases in fear and the idea that "ideas are dangerous.

Yeah, religion is evil. Just look at those religious wackos like Stalin and Brezhnev who killed millions and sent more to death camps or psychiatric hospitals just for reading the wrong books Oh wait, they were atheists. Well, I guess religion hasn't been the single greatest force for murder and oppression in the last century after all.

The statistics speak for themselves. Between the Soviet Union and China, many more died for Communism than because of religious violence.

By the way, have you considered that to wipe out religion, you'd have to engage in the same techniques of suppression of knowledge that you condemn? But it's all for the good of society, so it's OK, right? :rolleyes:

Re:End Religion and End Human Suffering!

[faragon]

"...The knowledge exists by which universal happiness can be secured; the chief obstacle to its utilization for that purpose is the teaching of religion. Religion prevents our children from having a rational education; religion prevents us from removing the fundamental causes of war; religion prevents us from teaching the ethic of scientific co-operation in place of the old fierce doctrines of sin and punishment. It is possible that mankind is on the threshold of a golden age; but, if so, it will be necessary first to slay the dragon that guards the door, and this dragon is religion." (Bertrand Russell)

Re:End Religion and End Human Suffering!

[CRCulver]

Bertrand Russell's specialization was not the philosophy of religion, but rather other fields within philosophy. Why don't you quote people who actually know what they are talking about, non-theist philosophers of religion like (pre-conversion) Flew or Mackie?

Re:End Religion and End Human Suffering!

[ChromeAeonium]

It appearers religion also prevents us from seeing the real problems. Believing that religion causes all that stuff is as wacko as Jack Thompson believing that video games cause people to commit murder. I'm not denying that people use religion to justify various nasty deeds, but odds are crazies will go crazy anyway. You remove religion, they'll just find some other reason to go nuts, like race, nationality, economic system, ect.

Re:End Religion and End Human Suffering!

[faragon]

Bertrand Russell's specialization was not the philosophy of religion, but rather other fields within philosophy.
It is your opinion.

Why don't you quote people who actually know what they are talking about, non-theist philosophers of religion like (pre-conversion) Flew or Mackie?
We'll, I was also thinking about quoting Philip J. Fry, but thought that Russell had a bit more of relevance in the mankind history.

Re:End Religion and End Human Suffering!

[CRCulver]

It is your opinion.

No, it's fact. Look at Russell's academic publishing record. He was working in completely separate areas of philosophy, and his writings on why he wasn't a Christian were for a popular audience.

We'll, I was also thinking about quoting Philip J. Fry, but thought that Russell had a bit more of relevance in the mankind history.

I see, so you choose figures to back up your points based their celebrity instead of an actual record in the field?

Re:End Religion and End Human Suffering!

[computechnica]

Wow! have you read the bible? god has killed a great many in this wonderful work of fiction.
I come up with a total of 2,270,971

Thats not even considering the inquisitions and numerous Crusades!

Re:End Religion and End Human Suffering!

[Chandon Seldon]

Between the Soviet Union and China, many more died for Communism than because of religious violence.

It's the same problem though - a group of people that is sure that they have the truth and that everyone else needs to be converted to their beliefs, by force if necessary.

Sure, "everyone has to follow our economic system" has been a big killer in the 20th century - but that doesn't make "everyone has to follow our spiritual beliefs" any less dangerous. In fact, religion has more *potential* for danger because at least the economic system thing is claiming its basis in rational thought so there's some hope of reasoning with it.

Well, I guess religion hasn't been the single greatest force for murder and oppression in the last century after all.

No. That force has been oppressive governments. Not terrorists (religious or not). Not even wars with other countries. The largest source of murder and oppression in the last century has been people's own national governments acting against them.

Re:End Religion and End Human Suffering!

[faragon]

In my opinion, Russell was as qualified as Kurt Gödel in the "philosophy of religion" field, years light beyond Descartes or Saint Thomas.

Re:End Religion and End Human Suffering!

[Cyberax]

Actually, Brezhnev has not killed or imprisoned many people. Learn the history.

And Stalin studied at theological seminary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalin#Childhood_and_education.2C_1878.E2.80.931899).

Whoops.

Re:End Religion and End Human Suffering!

[antifoidulus]

Religion is also a large part of the reason for suppression of knowledge, increases in fear and the idea that "ideas are dangerous." But once you subtract 'religion' and 'morals' from the minds of many, you'll find they actually don't know how to think.

So you somehow think that telling other people how to think is the solution to other people telling them how to think? Don't you think that is...oh I don't know.... incredibly hypocritical!

Think for yourself by thinking the way I think!

Thats pretty much what you are decrying and professing at the same time.

Re:End Religion and End Human Suffering!

[ChromeAeonium]

Yeah, and Richard Dawkins was raised in an Angelician household. What's your point?

Re:End Religion and End Human Suffering!

[Cyberax]

Actually, it's not known if Stalin was an atheist. Lenin certainly was, but Stalin had never said he was an atheist.

He certainly acted against the Orthodox Church, but it is not clear if he acted against the religion itself.

Re:End Religion and End Human Suffering!

[CRCulver]

Actually, Brezhnev has not killed or imprisoned many people. Learn the history.

Brezhnev was included until the "psychiatric hospitals" reference.

Re:End Religion and End Human Suffering!

[Reality Master 101]

I agree that, overall, the world would be much better if everyone just admits the truth that God doesn't exist, and was created by man to deal with his fears.

That said, don't underestimate the positive influence of organized religion. It keeps a *lot* of people in line who otherwise would have no reason to behave in a moral way. Some people really believe there's a "big daddy in the sky" watching their every move, and it keeps them in line the same way a child stays in line when their parents are watching.

There's also the charity role of the churches, which is not insignificant. Many people do it because they think they're required to.

I don't think religion can be eliminated until there's something mainstream to replace it -- some sort of church without supernaturalism. A place where people can go to talk and learn about morals and ethics. There really isn't anything like that except religion in modern life. I wish there was, actually. I've managed to protect my kids from religious influence so far (they're six and eight), but I do wish there was a place for the positive moral teachings.

Re:End Religion and End Human Suffering!

[morari]

No, quite the opposite actually.

Re:End Religion and End Human Suffering!

[ChromeAeonium]

Some say religion is just the "given" excuse for violence and oppression. Let me tell you a little story about science, religion, and excuses.

About 150 years ago, in an age when most scientists believed that God created the universe, it was believed that black people were inferior to white people for biblical reasons. Some believed that God made the races separately, some believed that blacks were affected by Lot's curse. Either way, due to religious reasons, they said blacks were inferior.

Fast forward to post Darwin days. Now that evolution was widely accepted, the theory was that blacks are closer to monkeys than whites, and that since they were less evolved, they were inferior.

Do you see a difference here? I don't. Despite using two radically different ideas, one religious and one scientific, people came to the exact same conclusion. So, ask yourself, why is that? Do religion, AND science, really breed racism, or were they merely justifications? Either science is racist, or religion (and science, and any other ideas people care to warp for political reasons), is, for the most part, simply abused by a select few to control the masses. At the end of the day, it is not the justification, but the usually harder to see root cause, that is the problem. In this particular situation, racism was the root cause, religion and science were merely justifications. Notice how they were interchangeable. It is foolhardy to blame the justifications and ignore the root cause.

Religion is also a large part of the reason for suppression of knowledge, increases in fear and the idea that "ideas are dangerous." Is that why, at one point, the Middle East became the technological center of the world under Islam? Is that why ideas flourished during the Renaissance in Europe, a more or less Christian period? I call BS. Religion does not affect ideas near as much as the political climate.

Re:End Religion and End Human Suffering!

[erroneus]

"The Dark Ages" was brought on by religion. Islam did more and DOES more to suppress technology now and always has. The invention of algebra predates Islam and was almost lost entirely because of it. The Renaissance in Europe was the period after the dark ages and was an intellectual revolution when the minds of the time were freed from religion and religious government control.

You did a pretty good job of identifying exactly the most significant periods of human history that show what humanity does with and without religion.

Prior to the dark ages, there were technologies lost that were later recreated and rediscovered. The progress of human knowledge and progress has always been held back and even reversed under religious control. And frankly, nothing has changed even today. I'll agree that "science" needs some control as they often forget to ask "if they should" while discovering "if they could." But when the decisions are made based on religious ideals, beliefs or dogma, it's usually a bad thing. When you think about all of the suppressed technology and advancement, I have to wonder where we would be today if human progress hadn't been held back.

Re:End Religion and End Human Suffering!

[Seraphim_72]

and 'morals' from the minds of many, you'll find they actually don't know how to think.

I was trained to try to never use absolutes but for the first time I think I can use one. I, nor anyone else, wants to live in your world that has no morals.

Re:End Religion and End Human Suffering!

[Romwell]

Yeah, sure, Brezhnev killed 'millions'... Do your HW before posting.
"A research by VTsIOM showed that 31% Russian people would like to live during Brezhnev's era rather than any other period of Russian history during the 20th century" http://www.rosbalt.ru/2007/04/25/294470.html

Re:End Religion and End Human Suffering!

[CRCulver]

Yeah, sure, Brezhnev killed 'millions'... Do your HW before posting.

I was attributing confinement in psychiatric hospitals to Brezhnev. Furthermore, much of the gulag system was continued under Brezhnev's administration, and any deaths there from exhaustion or malnourishment could be fairly attributed to him.

A research by VTsIOM showed that 31% Russian people would like to live during Brezhnev's era rather than any other period of Russian history during the 20th century

And old people I encounter when doing fieldwork in Russia tell me that life was grand under Stalin and they'd like to return to that. The nostalgia of the people doesn't count for much.

Re:End Religion and End Human Suffering!

[master_p]

Communism was like a religion to Stalin and the other USSR leaders.

Re:End Religion and End Human Suffering!

[master_p]

The best way to eradicate the problem of religion is education.

Re:End Religion and End Human Suffering!

[CRCulver]

And yet philosophers of religion, in spite of their years of training and immersion in debate, often nonetheless find that e.g. the Christian faith is defensible.

Re:End Religion and End Human Suffering!

[xRelisH]

Just look at those religious wackos like Stalin and Brezhnev who killed millions and sent more to death camps or psychiatric hospitals just for reading the wrong books Oh wait, they were atheists

This is a common misunderstanding. Stalin, et al. were atheists, but they did not do their actions in the name of atheism - it was merely that they had certain views, and they just happened to be atheists.

Re:End Religion and End Human Suffering!

[ghyd]

At the same time the personality cult around Soviet or Chinese leaders seems closer to religious spirit than to any rationalist approach.

Re:End Religion and End Human Suffering!

[something_wicked_thi]

People who kill people do so for a variety of reasons. Some do it out of religion. Others do it out of greed for power.Some do it because it is the rational thing to do, such as in self defense. or euthenasia. The point is that most people believe that killing people is bad for whatever reason, and this belief needs to be overcome. Religion perverts reason and is one way in which it can be overcome. Not all evil will be gone from the world when religion is seen as what it is - the rejection of reason - but we will have eliminated one major cause of grief and suffering in the world.

But you are right on one count - you can't decree a ban on religion. People should be free to believe what they will, however misguided. But worse than that, it will not work. Nothing strengthens religion more than persecution. The only way we will ever be free of religion is through enlightenment, not edict.

Re:End Religion and End Human Suffering!

[something_wicked_thi]

I thought the point of faith was that it was believed in spite of or in lack of evidence, and thus required no defense. Obviously, there are no proofs one way or the other, so I fail to see how one might defend a faith other than repetition. The fact that we have no way to know which faith, if any, is the correct one is enough for me to reject the whole matter as completely hopeless.

Re:God

[Broken scope]

Doesn't religious persecution tend to kill the moderates and breed more radicals?

Re:Screw Mohammed.

[CRCulver]

There are lots of tolerant Muslim people out there.

Where are they hiding?

Re:WHY IS THIS IN POLITICS????!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

The editors should be following their own rules.

You must be new here.

Ignoring the differences between the two...

[Quiet_Desperation]

Why is presenting "Bad Thing B" in answer to "Bad Thing A" still considered a acceptable method of debate?

Re:Ignoring the differences between the two...

[Quiet_Desperation]

But they are the same thing only at the absolute shallowest level of comparison. Go even one level beyond, and Bad Thing B becomes a complete non sequitur when discussing Bad Thing A.

Re:Ignoring the differences between the two...

[AiToyonsNostril]

This particular topic is especially prone to the "Bad Thing A"-"Bad Thing B" juxtaposition. I'd bet dollars for donuts you cannot start a thread on female genital mutilation anywhere and not get a "but what about the males?" response. I'd venture a guess as to why the issue is so, ahem, thorny for men but I'd probably break the record for fastest flamebait modding ever. Men do get so defensive about measurements. XD

It should be a jurisimprudence law somewhere.

Re:Ignoring the differences between the two...

[Scrameustache]

Why is presenting "Bad Thing B" in answer to "Bad Thing A" still considered a acceptable method of debate? Because if "Standards A" applies to "Act B" in case of "Chromosome Y" but not to "Act B" in case of "Chromosome X" then you have demonstrated "Double Standards".

My house and Pakistan

[Statecraftsman]

We banned YouTube too. Well not we, she. In any case it's off limits. Too subversive of her power she says. Oh well. It's good to know Pakistani's feel my pain.

Re:Screw Mohammed.

[gad_zuki!]

>There are lots of tolerant Muslim people out there.

Maybe but there sure isnt enough of them to say "Hey, lets do away with theocracy." The fact that theocratic governments are allowed makes me think that they arent as 'tolerant' as people like you claim.

Cue the moral relativist crowd and the people who are going to reply to this by blaming western powers in 3.. 2.. 1..

Re:God

[Knave75]

Doesn't religious persecution tend to kill the moderates and breed more radicals?

It is true, I used to be a moderate secularist, but now I'm a rabid and radical anti-religion zealot.

Obligatory

[Fahrvergnuugen]

"The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it."

-John Gilmore, 1993

Religion and its leaders

[Teun]

It is really shameful how religious leaders continue to try to impress their own (private) values on the rest of the world.
No later than 9/11 we (in the democratic world) were made aware how narrow the scope of some Muslim leaders is when quite a few of them spoke out with understanding or even admiration for the criminals that crashed these planes killing thousands of innocent.

Of course this type of behaviour is not limited to Moslims, just look at the retards that, especially in the USofA, are trying to ban education on Evolution or bomb medical clinics.

Here in The Netherlands we had a nice one last night, around 01:00 in the night one of the public broadcasters decided to air the old Deep Throat movie, in (eager?) anticipation quite a few religious leaders protested as if they did not have an off button on their TV :)

In the case of YouTube there might be a link to my country as an extreme nationalistic member of the Dutch Parliament (Geert Wilders) is readying a movie/ documentary called Fitna (Arabic for Evil) about what he perceives as the dangers of Islam and the Quran.
More and more politicians of wholly undemocratic Muslim nations are protesting with the Dutch government and demanding a stop to this movie as it would be an insult to Islam.
Mr. Wilders has so far not found a regular broadcaster to air his work and has said he'll distribute it via the net, starting with YouTube.

The problem will not go away until religious people, starting with their leaders, learn to accept there is more in this world than their own (narrow) view and that a cartoon or critical movie is generally not meant as an insult or attack but to further discussion and even educate on the subjects covered.

Re:Religion and its leaders

[Deadstick]

Here in The Netherlands we had a nice one last night, around 01:00 in the night one of the public broadcasters decided to air the old Deep Throat movie, in (eager?) anticipation quite a few religious leaders protested as if they did not have an off button on their TV

They knew perfectly well they had an off button on their TV. They were angry because they didn't have an off button connected to your TV.

rj

Re:Religion and its leaders

[Teun]

They knew perfectly well they had an off button on their TV. They were angry because they didn't have an off button connected to your TV. You are probably closer to the truth than your jest implies, indeed they would like to enforce their own beliefs on the rest of the world, including me.

I did not think the movie would have changed much trough the years so I went to bed well before :)

Re:Religion and its leaders

[antibryce]

Fitna doesn't mean "evil". Wikipedia's page about it is pretty decent. My arabic dictionary has definitions generally related to temptation or civil strife/riots.

Re:Religion and its leaders

[mapkinase]

Well, you seem to be angry not to have an access to a button that offs the religious leaders.

Re:Religion and its leaders

[leomekenkamp]

Here in The Netherlands we had a nice one last night, around 01:00 in the night one of the public broadcasters decided to air the old Deep Throat movie, in (eager?) anticipation quite a few religious leaders protested as if they did not have an off button on their TV :)

I especially found it very amusing that Dorenbosch, the former head of the EO (Evangelistic Broadcasting Corporation), publicly stated that he would pray that Deep Throat would not be aired. Since DT aired we now know that Dorenbosch' prayers are worth jack shit...

Re:Religion and its leaders

[westlake]

It is really shameful how religious leaders continue to try to impress their own (private) values on the rest of the world

and what of the Geek who tries to impose his ideas on the world? particularly when they touch on the core values of a religion and a society which he doesn't understand?

Re:Screw Mohammed.

[ushering05401]

"Where are they hiding?"

In plain sight. By virtue of not being fanatical jihad-monkeys they tend to blend in pretty well with their surroundings just like peaceful Jews, Christians, Wiccans, etc..

Or did you not know that Muslims can look just like anyone else, speak reasonably, and contribute positively to their communities in unassuming and humble manners?

Hell, if nothing else it is nice having Muslims in your community because their bodegas are open on Christian holidays. Try getting out in the real world once in a while.

Re:Screw Mohammed.

[xtracto]

For one, I met a guy who was doing his PhD here in the UK in the same office as me. The guy was from Sudan and he used to get on his knees and pray at certain times in the office. I did not care, in fact I thought it was cool (however I consider myself quite cosmopolite, being from Mexico and living in the UK). I am also currently sharing an office with people from Syria and Iran, they are really nice people and very tolerant. Of course this is people who is trying to achieve their PhD so, their education level might not be the standard one of that country. Of course, if we think about the "standard" american, they are pretty much intolerant themselves.

Re:Screw Mohammed.

[CRCulver]

In plain sight. By virtue of not being fanatical jihad-monkeys they tend to blend in pretty well with their surroundings just like peaceful Jews, Christians, Wiccans, etc..

And yet from these supposedly assimilated folks a disturbingly large amount of funding flows to the Middle East, and they don't seem to protest much when Wahhabi hate literature starts to be distributed in their community.

Re:WHY IS THIS IN POLITICS????!!!

[Zedekiah]

If you think that what goes on in the middle east does not affect your politics, you need a wake up call.

Re:Imho...

[ScrewMaster]

Printing them again, knowing what it might cause: provocation.

So what? These people need to be continually provoked until they understand and accept that there's no percentage in getting upset about it. People using threats and intimidation to censor other people should offend every civilized human being.

Look, this is the bully syndrome at work, and by not continually provoking them, by giving in to their threats, you're simply following a policy of appeasement. That never works with a bully, ever, because next time they'll want more. I am not prepared to give it to them.

Furthermore, we're talking about material published on the Internet in another country. They have zero grounds for imposing their own sense of what is acceptable on the rest of the world. It's time they grew up and accepted the fact that the rest of us don't care what they think. As an American, I have to suffer through enough irrational and outright wrong anti-U.S. crap every day, but I don't go around making threats or demanding the Web sites be blocked just because I don't like it.

These people just need to grow up. Until they do, trying to avoid "provoking" them is not a concern of mine, since they don't seem to care if they provoke me. Not, I might add, that it matters what they say about me or my country. I'm an adult, my skin is pretty thick in that regard.

Cutting off nose to spite face

[Secrity]

Fundies, whether Muslim or Christian are amazingly stupid.

Re:Cutting off nose to spite face

[Faylone]

Zealots of any kind are prone to stupidity, be they for religion, operating systems, gaming consoles...

Re:Cutting off nose to spite face

[Secrity]

To the best of my knowledge, there haven't been any OS zealots who have called for the deaths of heretics.

This is about politics, not religion.

[mellon]

I know the reason they /gave/ is that YouTube content is blasphemous, but what they /didn't/ tell you is that there have been a lot of really embarrassing videos on YouTube recently. One you might have seen in the news was the one where they showed that there was a gunshot before the explosion that officially was supposed to have killed Benazir Buttho. But it's my understanding that there have been a lot of videos that are /personally/ embarrassing to politicians in Islamabad as well, and this is more probably the motivation behind the ban.

It serves all the sitting politicians' interests to paint this as a religious thing (including the Bush government); it's up to us to try to see through the propaganda.

Re:Screw Mohammed.

[ushering05401]

"And yet from these supposedly assimilated folks a disturbingly large amount of funding flows to the Middle East, and they don't seem to protest much when Wahhabi hate literature starts to be distributed in their community."

Immigrant populations send money home and will continue to do so until exchange rates don't make it profitable to come live in western nations while supporting families elsewhere. Most of that money is going to families who are trying to make do in their ancestral homeland, not terrorist organizations.

As for hate literature, I have yet to see this happen in my community. On the contrary there are minimum two major interfaith events a year co-sponsored by the largest local mosque and the largest local synagogue not to mention the year end Unitarian celebration that includes Buddhists, Jews, Muslims, Christians, and anyone else who wants to attentd.

All I have to cite for you is my personal experience gathered while living across the USA in places like L.A., N.Y.C., and now New England. Each of these places has visible Muslim populations, and the examples of interfaith cooperation are everywhere for anyone who cares to look.

The only really dangerous experience I have had with a religious group was with the 'Black Israelites' in NYC. And anyone who has dealt with them will tell you that there homegrown religious threats as virulent as any imported Muslim variety.

Oh no!

[eitreach]

They're boycotting danish flash videos! More bandwidth for meee.

Historical Deja Vu

[Pecisk]

Why this reminds Catholic fight to get believers under control in Middle Ages? Ohh, because churches are actually big historical scams and faith has actually nothing to do with it.

Yes, I believe in God. And I believe that church has lot of good, nice people in faith there. So it is outrageous that there is _lot_ of people who game this system for their own good. As any system. Wait, it is human nature.

Re:Screw Mohammed.

[jdfox]

>And yet from these supposedly assimilated folks a disturbingly large amount of funding flows to the Middle East

From all of them? You speak as if they all acted in lock-step. Got any sources for that assertion covering billions of people?

>and they don't seem to protest much when Wahhabi hate literature starts to be distributed in their community.

There's that word "they" again. And how would you know? Why would "they" protest on the TV news? Would that reach the people to whom the message needs to reach? The Muslims that I've seen campaigning against extremism wisely avoid the media spotlight, knowing that their words would be twisted against them, and be used to whip up fear.

If you're like me...

[deesine]

then you don't have a problem separating the religion from the people who follow it. The fact is: there is not one school of Islamic jurisprudence that does not advocate warfare and subjugation of unbelievers. Fortunately the vast majority of Muslims, like members of all mainstream faiths, do not, in large numbers, strictly follow their own doctrine.

Either I'm in Pakistan

[bdraschk]

... and nobody told me, or somebody in Germany has demanded to block youtube, too. Just timeouts here.

Re:Either I'm in Pakistan

[Lavene]

Must be the power of Allah... cause I'm in Norway and Youtube is unavailable. Turn around friends! God's wrath is upon us! Either that or some server has bombed...

Re:Either I'm in Pakistan

[Lavene]

Either that or some server has bombed... Come to think about it that might have been a poor choice of words...

Re:Screw Mohammed.

[herriojr]

I know this has nothing to do with it, but I'm in Silicon Valley and I can't even ping youtube. Is anyone else having this issue?

Re:It's stupid anyway.

[Lord Kano]

I'm a Christian, I only mention that because I am in no way offended by images of Jesus. Sure, the depictions are probably massively wrong (white man, blue eyes, long hair) but they don't offend me. I just don't get why an image can be so offensive.

It's different. As a Christian, you believe that Jesus was at the very least the begotten son of God, or depending on your denomination God in the flesh. Muslims believe that Muhammad was just a man. They are expressly forbidden from worshipping graven images(as are you), but the argument can be made that someone's estimate of what God looked like when he walked the earth is not exactly a graven image.

LK

Not "a" Danish newspaper

[Per Abrahamsen]

It was all of them this time, unlike the first time the were printed. The cartoon in question was the "bomb in turban" drawing from the top of the original article. The were reprinted as a reaction to an alleged murder plot against the cartoonist.

I'm not sure what kind of reasoning will lead anyone to attempt to murder somebody for insinuating that their prophet inspire violent behavior. By doing so, they just prove the cartoonist right.

Re:Not "a" Danish newspaper

[F34nor]

Not only that but the injunction against images of the prophet Muhammad are to prevent idolatry. How can satire inspire idol worship?

Re:Imho...

[smoker2]

These people need to be continually provoked until they understand and accept that there's no percentage in getting upset about it. People using threats and intimidation to censor other people should offend every civilized human being.
Look, this is the bully syndrome at work, and by not continually provoking them, by giving in to their threats, you're simply following a policy of appeasement. That never works with a bully, ever, because next time they'll want more. I am not prepared to give it to them.
Furthermore, we're talking about material published on the Internet in another country. They have zero grounds for imposing their own sense of what is acceptable on the rest of the world. It's time they grew up and accepted the fact that the rest of us don't care what they think.

Are we still talking about Pakistan here ?
Because the same statement applies to the USA.
What was it Bush said ?

You're either with us or you're against us. Sounds like a bully to me, and when he made that statement he lost my support immediately, it even made me angry, and I'm not a terr'st.

Islam requires theocracy

[CustomDesigned]

Islam has an answer to the question of how to stop evil, war, and bloodshed. Their answer is that people need to be forced to be good. An Islamic state with the power to enforce sharia law is essential to the muslim concept of how to overcome evil. When the entire world is under sharia, and everyone is forced to be good, then there will be peace - islam.

Now there can be liberal interpretations of Islam - where each individual needs to wage "jihad" against their own evil. But this is not the traditional stance, or even an obvious one just from reading Quran. It is an assimilation of the Christian idea that "the line between good and evil runs not between us and them, but through each of our hearts".

My problem with Islam is that when a person is externally forced to behave well, that might make the streets safer if done effectively, but that person is still not a good person. The evil within them is just biding its time, waiting for an opportunity. And no external enforcement by human beings is perfect. There will always be loopholes and opportunities to do evil.

Re:Islam requires theocracy

[causality]

My problem with Islam is that when a person is externally forced to behave well, that might make the streets safer if done effectively, but that person is still not a good person. The evil within them is just biding its time, waiting for an opportunity. And no external enforcement by human beings is perfect. There will always be loopholes and opportunities to do evil.

Indeed, it will fail just as every previous attempt to legislate morality has failed. Like every victimless-crime law in the USA, it would require a complete and total surveillance state/police state to enforce, and you can be assured that the kind of people who want to create such a police state and rule over it are not good people who care about your best interests. There is something seriously wrong with any individual or group who wants to have that kind of power and their acquisition of it is far more dangerous than whatever it was they were supposedly going to protect us from -- with no exceptions. This kind of fanatical approach to "removing evil" or "protecting you from yourself" is evil in and of itself.

What such attempts can and have done is to take "evil" behavior (be it drugs, prostitution, gambling, whatever) and drive it underground. A completely unregulated, illegal market for such things has always made them more dangerous. Additionally, I wonder if the proponents of Prohibition were willing to have the deaths of everyone who was killed by the likes of Al Capone on their conscience? That pesky Law of Unintended Consequences is something from which people repeatedly refuse to learn.

I wish we could evolve past this silly notion that good and evil are nothing more than sufficiently-comprehensive lists of "do's" and "dont's", as I think this is where the idea that "forced to behave a certain way = good person" comes from. The whole thing really is a denial of the spiritual nature of human beings and the moral struggles that occur within each person that the outside world never sees. I find it quite ironic that such denials typically come from major religions.

Re:Islam requires theocracy

[pinkocommie]

That isn't actually accurate. (Disclaimer: I used to be muslim).
To begin with Sharia was a creation that came into existence many centuries after Islam and was primarily religious folks trying to unify the people against their 'corrupt' leaders using a unified codex across the Islamic lands.
Nobody can and/or should be forced to do anything. The whole bit about 'There can be no compulsion in religion'
Even quranically the prophet was told to back off after telling people what was right/wrong because the rest was upto them.
In the spirit of full disclosure I at the moment believe that religion itself is bunk, regardless of which variety you look at.

Re:God

[Lord Kano]

We need a night of long knives where every imam, every priest, every rabbi, every religious "leader" wakes up with a slit throat.

Yeah, violence is the best way to solve the world's problems.

LK

Unfortunatly

[arthurpaliden]

Too few to matter.....

Economic prosperity and Islam

[Per Abrahamsen]

Saudi-Arabia is one of the richest countries in the world, and also one of the most oppressive theist regimes in the world.

And like Pakistan, we already trade with them, so I don't think you are on the right path.

Re:Screw Mohammed.

[RussWill]

It's forbidden to be a tolerant muslim. The law of God. Sorry...

rich != smart

[mangu]

economic prosperity and theism are inversely related

Oh, yeah?

Youtube is down

[canuck57]

Hm, could not get to youtube.com from two dramatically different network access points. Wonder what is up?

Re:Screw Mohammed.

[cjb658]

It's a military dictatorship. That it is Islamic is beside the point.

Knowledge is power. Military dictators that use censorship to keep their people ignorant keep them from questioning authority, revolting, and rebelling.

It's nothing new.

Re:Islam

[Teun]

I'd call you Insightful, including your first line.

Because the people behind the disgusting comments show the same lack of tolerance that lead to the (fruitless) shutting off of YouTube in Pakistan.

Moderates strangely quiet

[Tablizer]

["Where are [moderates] hiding?"] In plain sight. By virtue of not being fanatical jihad-monkeys they tend to blend in pretty well with their surroundings just like peaceful Jews, Christians, Wiccans, etc..

But they don't seem in any affective way to be reigning in the actions of their fanatic counterparts. It's as if they don't care that a small percentage of fanatics are ruining the reputation, economy, and safety of their own country. There are no counter-protests, for example. No red-state-blue-state kind of active political debates.

Something is out-of-whack. It strongly appears as if they secretly condone such behavior and only complain against it to naive foreign journalists.

Re:Moderates strangely quiet

[pijokela]

There are no counter-protests, for example. No red-state-blue-state kind of active political debates. There are regular protests in Turkey opposing any change towards a more islamic nation. And I do believe the protesters are muslims. So it's not all black and white.

Re:Moderates strangely quiet

[mmalove]

The part your missing is that the extremists regularly kill off those that would lead protests against their dogma and actions. They make an example of one, and a hundred shy back into their homes in fear. It's been that way for years.

If we really wanted Iraq to be a free country, all we need to do is go door to door and give every man and woman a gun. Doesn't have to be anything fancy, a nice 12 gauge shotgun would do nicely.

There will be a civil war, followed by democracy. And amazingly, no US troop involvement necessary.

People may cry "WTF ur gonna get lotsa people killed?!" - but seriously the jihadist types aren't going to surrender. Better to give the people the best protection against them we can (self defense) than to play this charade of security and watch hundreds of Iraqies be murdered every day for their beliefs.

Re:Moderates strangely quiet

[Tablizer]

The part your missing is that the extremists regularly kill off those that would lead protests against their dogma and actions. They make an example of one, and a hundred shy back into their homes in fear. It's been that way for years

But why would one part of the population be so brave and determined, but another part so cowardly and timid? Such wide variation in a single culture doesn't make sense.

Re:Moderates strangely quiet

[Alsee]

As much as I want to cast stones at the "quiet" Muslims, I can't help thinking about how we couldn't even get 50% of the population to vote Bush out of office. And it's not like like a population of random Bush fanatics were running around with suicide vests blowing up politicians and newspapers and voting booths.

-

Re:Moderates strangely quiet

[Tablizer]

I can't help thinking about how we couldn't even get 50% of the population to vote Bush out of office.

The surge's apparent (minor) success seems to have given W some legs he otherwise was about to lose. Enough people wanted to give it a longer try after it showed hints of working.

Kazakhstan, too?

[borat4president]

This very weird, but as I'm writing this comment YouTube does not seem to be accessible here in Kazakhstan. I'm saying weird because I really don't expect out government to do anything like that. Is YouTube just being DDoSed by Islamist botnets?

Re:Kazakhstan, too?

[eitreach]

Have a look at yelvinton's comment. Apparently Youtube is down globally.

Re:DNS hijackers block YouTube

[AndrewBuck]

I can confirm this as well, both the whois record and the traceroute. My tinfoil hat is tingling. ;)

On a more serious note, I tried this IP address (208.65.153.253) found on this http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=225558&cid=18262112 slashdot post and that didn't seem to work for me either. Perhaps there is some kind of concerted attack against youtube or they have simply relocated servers since this journal post. Does anyone have a more recent IP address?

-Buck

Re:DNS hijackers block YouTube

[nlitement]

This just in? Because damn.. I just used YouTube like an hour ago and suddenly it doesn't respond. Odd.

Re:DNS hijackers block YouTube

[Teun]

Yeah right.

Registrant:
YouTube, Inc.
ATTN: YOUTUBE.COM
c/o Network Solutions
P.O. Box 447
Herndon, VA. 20172-0447

Domain Name: YOUTUBE.COM

--
Promote your business to millions of viewers for only $1 a month
Learn how you can get an Enhanced Business Listing here for your domain name.
Learn more at http://www.networksolutions.com/
--

Administrative Contact, Technical Contact:
YouTube, Inc. zw7u66pf4f7@networksolutionsprivateregistration.com
ATTN: YOUTUBE.COM
c/o Network Solutions
P.O. Box 447
Herndon, VA 20172-0447
570-708-8780

Record expires on 15-Feb-2009.
Record created on 15-Feb-2005.
Database last updated on 24-Feb-2008 14:27:56 EST.

Domain servers in listed order:

DNS1.SJL.YOUTUBE.COM 208.65.152.201
DNS2.SJL.YOUTUBE.COM 208.65.152.137

This listing is a Network Solutions Private Registration. Mail
correspondence to this address must be sent via USPS Express Mail(TM) or
USPS Certified Mail(R); all other mail will not be processed. Be sure to
include the registrant's domain name in the address.

But but but...

[Per Abrahamsen]

How do they manage to disguise their scimitars and poulaines?

Re:DNS hijackers block YouTube

[Mage Powers]

I'm not seeing the same stuff as you are. I've checked DNS on all computers I have access to. I don't think its a DNS problem.

mage@prometheus:~/Notes$ host youtube.com
youtube.com has address 208.65.153.251
youtube.com has address 208.65.153.238
youtube.com has address 208.65.153.253
youtube.com mail is handled by 10 sjl-mbox1.sjl.youtube.com.
mage@prometheus:~/Notes$ host sjl-mbox1.sjl.youtube.com.
sjl-mbox1.sjl.youtube.com has address 208.65.153.154
mage@prometheus:~/Notes$ whois 208.65.153.154

OrgName: YouTube, Inc.
OrgID: YOUTU
Address: 71 E Third Ave
Address: 2nd Floor
City: San Mateo
StateProv: CA
PostalCode: 94401
Country: US

NetRange: 208.65.152.0 - 208.65.155.255
CIDR: 208.65.152.0/22
NetName: YOUTUBE
NetHandle: NET-208-65-152-0-1
Parent: NET-208-0-0-0-0
NetType: Direct Assignment
NameServer: DNS1.SJL.YOUTUBE.COM
NameServer: DNS2.SJL.YOUTUBE.COM
Comment:
RegDate: 2006-03-02
Updated: 2006-03-09

RTechHandle: NETWO1084-ARIN
RTechName: networkradbaccount
RTechPhone: +1-650-343-2960
RTechEmail: radb@youtube.com

OrgTechHandle: NETWO1084-ARIN
OrgTechName: networkradbaccount
OrgTechPhone: +1-650-343-2960
OrgTechEmail: radb@youtube.com

# ARIN WHOIS database, last updated 2008-02-23 19:10
# Enter ? for additional hints on searching ARIN's WHOIS database.

Re:DNS hijackers block YouTube

[Paralizer]

I can confirm:

Server Name: YOUTUBE.COM.ZZZZZ.GET.LAID.AT.WWW.SWINGINGCOMMUNITY.COM
IP Address: 69.41.185.205
Registrar: INNERWISE, INC. D/B/A ITSYOURDOMAIN.COM
Whois Server: whois.itsyourdomain.com
Referral URL: http://www.itsyourdomain.com/

Server Name: YOUTUBE.COM.MORE.INFO.AT.WWW.BEYONDWHOIS.COM
IP Address: 203.36.226.2
Registrar: TUCOWS INC.
Whois Server: whois.tucows.com
Referral URL: http://domainhelp.opensrs.net/

Server Name: YOUTUBE.COM.IS.N0T.AS.1337.AS.WWW.GULLI.COM
IP Address: 80.190.192.39
Registrar: KEY-SYSTEMS GMBH
Whois Server: whois.rrpproxy.net
Referral URL: http://www.key-systems.net/

I queried the valid DNS and got these:

Using domain server:
Name: dns1.sjl.youtube.com
Address: 208.65.152.201#53
Aliases:

youtube.com has address 208.65.153.253
youtube.com has address 208.65.153.238
youtube.com has address 208.65.153.251

I can not ping any of these addresses.

Re:Hmm.

[TurinPT]

So what you're saying is that pakistanis are backward monkeys who see communication devices as western witchcraft. Nice tolerance you got going there, in another context i'd mistake you for a muslim.

porntube not youtube

[Aeron65432]

As one of my Pakistani friends ironically noted, they can't watch Youtube right now but can watch pretty much any porn site available on the internet still. Some, oddly enough, that exclusively show Muslims girls.

The only peaceful Muslim

[Anonymous Coward]

Is a dead one.

Or one that didn't read the entire Koran and cherry picks what to believe in. Their very foundation is flawed and violent, and believes that only they have a right to exist. What will it take for people to understand this?

( now i'm not saying other religions are perfect, just that we really need to state the facts here and not pretend they are some sort of benign cult )

Re:Screw Mohammed.

[orcrist]

I'm in Germany and it's exactly the same. Youtube is dead from here as well.

Has this ban worked too well?

[Rowenas Dad]

At the time of writing (19:40 GMT) I can't seem to get to YouTube via any ISP from the UK. And I was so looking forward to my regular dose of blasphemy and heresy.

Re:Has this ban worked too well?

[jafiwam]

I blame muslems.

Re:Screw Mohammed.

[nguy]

There are lots of tolerant Muslim people out there.

Of course. But Islam itself is still a fraud, and deeply evil, just like all the Abrahamic religions.

Everyone should just agree with me

[Per Abrahamsen]

Last century, as many if not more atrocities was done in the name of an atheist ideology (namely communism) as was done in the name of all the theist ideologies combines.

Your "solution" is just the same as the "solution" shared by all the missionary religions, just "convert" everyone to our point of view, and everything will be good.

Don't blame this on religion only!

[Ernest]

>> Religion is also a large part of the reason for suppression of knowledge, increases in fear and
>> the idea that "ideas are dangerous."

Look around you! Knowledge is power! And keeping the masses dumb is one of the tool of staying in power.

The only thing that brings religions into this is that the primitive shaman was the first to realise it.

The beauty of the Internet is that it is defusing that tool. Since the coming of the Internet the main source of all information is not top down anymore, and cannot easily be filtered.

Beside Pakistan, I also believe that all the powers that be (yes, ours too) are also attempting to destroy the Internet, or at least severely restricting it, because of this.

Ernest.

Who cares?

[Pig Hogger]

Who cares? They enjoy being kept in their religious ignorance (this comment also applies to the Bible Belt(TM)). The outcome is simple: mirror, block, mirror, block, mirror, block, mirror, block, mirror, block, mirror, block, mirror, block, mirror, block... ad nauseam.

Information ***WILL** get free. You cannot trap knowledge anymore that you can prevent one bather's pee from spreading throughout the **WHOLE** pool.

Youtube status

[hurricaneinVA]

Its 2:49PM EST right now and I am currently in the us and my remote server is in the US ...neither can get to Youtube

Is there something i dont know...

Re:Youtube status

[Xelios]

I'm in Germany, can't reach it either.

Tracert times out after hop 6, cr02.frf02.pccwbtn.net [80.81.192.50]

Re:Screw Mohammed.

[suso]

I'm in the midwest. Same thing. DDoS?

YOUTUBE banned in India

[snick_hill]

This is outrageous!!! Youtube's not opening up in my comp!! why the fuck should it be blocked here???

Youtube Comments

[kitsunewarlock]

C'mon we all hate YouTube comments...but to call them "Blasphemous"?

Actually, in all seriousness, there's enough half-assed political "debates" (I dread calling them that), in your favorite random anime AMV to warrant a fascist or communist country denying access to the site even if it didn't have anti-government videos...but then again you'd have to block the whole internet to block the ability to debate online...

Re:DNS hijackers block YouTube

[aaronmcdaid]

Could somebody please post Youtube's real IP address please?

(Cue oblig links to the IP address of a famous Christmas Island domain)

Re:Hmm.

[wanderingknight]

Yes, it is. The whole discussion here is just disgusting. I'm against censorship, but I'm against closed-minded stupidity, too. And the people posting here seem to have plenty of it.

US vs Europe, Muslims vs. Muslims

[Per Abrahamsen]

I think it is a difference between EU and US. There is a lot of fear among "moderate" Muslims in Europe about speaking up against the extremists. Far the majority of religiously motivated violence in Europe is extremest Muslims attacking other Muslims they don't consider "Muslim" enough. This goes from murder attempts on Muslim political leaders and academics that are speaking against the extremists, to harassment of women with Arabic names who dress in western style.

I'm not sure why this is not the case in the US, maybe it is the lower density, or that the "homelands" are farther away. Or maybe you are simply better at integrating immigrants.

Re:US vs Europe, Muslims vs. Muslims

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes we need to make it clear to muslims that saying sentences that come from the quran (a really, realy racist book) is completely unacceptable. Because anyone who repeats e.g. "all non-muslims are worth less than the filthyest of animals" (quran 8:55) really isn't doing good.

Oh wait this is the word of "allah".

So we just need muslims to tell allah to shut up, and change his mind, right ? Please elaborate on exactly how this works.

(and btw, in Christianity you have the story of the good Samaritan, making the exact opposite point)

Re:Screw Mohammed.

[David_Shultz]

Islam is the only religion where you can be considered a moderate for not supporting terrorism. Surely that tells you something. Besides, moderate Islam and terrorist Muslims are standing on a par with respect to the rationality of their beliefs. Both groups of people have a view of the world colored by an irrational adoption of some ancient dogma. In supporting one you inevitably support the other, by granting credence to the idea that "faith" is a sensible (and indeed positive) way to go about forming your beliefs. Faith is a danger, no matter who is doing it, because all of our beliefs should be thought through. Moderates give aid and comfort to extremists by supporting the concept of faith and unchecked belief in superstition. There is no such thing as "true Islam" -all brands of Islam are equally fictional. If anything, extremists are closest to a "true Islam" because their behavior most accurately reflects Islamic texts and the life of Mohammad.

Re:Hmm.

[kdemetter]

So what you're saying is that pakistanis are backward monkeys who see communication devices as western witchcraft. Nice tolerance you got going there, in another context i'd mistake you for a muslim.
</quote>

Well , now you are generalizing .<br />
<p>Just change 'Pakistanis' with 'Pakistani government' , and i'd say 'backward monkeys who see communication devices as western witchcraft' is a pretty accurate description .</p>

<p>It's clear they see youtube as some kind of evil thing , which the Pakistani people must be protected against.</p>

Re:DNS hijackers block YouTube

[Anonymous Coward]

Nothing to do with DNS. The SOA records are still showing as authoritative on youtube's domain servers with the last update as of 17 Feb 08. What is actually happening is that AS17557 (Pakistan Telecom Authority) is advertising more specific prefixes from their AS which are being blackholed at ingress, rather than the "official" ASN of 36561 which is still visible in BGP, but is less specific. (Those who know about IP routing will know that a more specific prefix always takes precedence over a supernet/aggregate/summary). Basically PTA screwed up the BGP advertisements and are affecting the whole internet, rather than just blackholing internally to their country...

Blocked or down?

[houghi]

I live in Belgium and am unable to access www.youtube.com with a telnet on port 80.
The same from an XS4All account in The Netherlands. I ahve also tried some 6 IP's and no reaction.

So I think this is more then just Pakistan blocking things.

Re:Blocked or down?

[Mr Thinly Sliced]

Yep, belgium here too, no youtube - whois shows dodgy IPs:

YOUTUBE.COM.ZZZZZ.GET.LAID.AT.WWW.SWINGINGCOMMUNITY.COM
YOUTUBE.COM.MORE.INFO.AT.WWW.BEYONDWHOIS.COM
YOUTUBE.COM.IS.N0T.AS.1337.AS.WWW.GULLI.COM
YOUTUBE.COM

And here is some non-caps text to stop slashdot bitching about me yelling. Bah.

Re:Blocked or down?

[bluemagoo]

FWIW, youtube appears to be down in Brooklyn, NY, USA on Cablevision's OptimumOnline internet service. :-(

It was working early this morning at ~01:30 EST before I went to bed.

Re:Blocked or down?

[houghi]

It works again.

Re:DNS hijackers block YouTube

[yelvington]

Looks like it's ARIN as well as DNS.

Try host 208.65.153.238:
238.153.65.208.in-addr.arpa domain name pointer youtube.com.hk.

Then whois youtube.com.hk.

Domain Name: YOUTUBE.COM.HK
Contract Version: HKDNR latest version

Registrant Contact Information:

Company English Name (It should be the same as the registered/corporation name on your Business Register Certificate or relevant documents): HONG KONG INTERNET (HOLDING) LIMITED
Company Chinese name: ??????????????
Address: RM 2203E, NAN FUNG CENTRE, 264-298 CASTLE PEAK RD TSUEN WAN
Country: HK
Email: domainreg@webdomain.com.hk
Domain Name Commencement Date: 01-08-2006
Expiry Date: 27-06-2008
Re-registration Status: Complete
Name of Registrar: HKDNR

Administrative Contact Information:

First name: DOMAIN
Last name: ADMIN
Company name: GOOGLE INC.
Address: PMB 155, 10400 OVERLAND RD BOISE 83709-1433 ID
Country: US
Phone: +1-208-3895740
Fax: +1-208-3895771
Email: domainreg@webdomain.com.hk
Account Name: HK1914580T

Technical Contact Information:

First name: DOMAIN REG.
Last name: SECTION
Company name: HONG KONG INTERNET (HOLDING) LIMITED.
Address: RM 2203E, NAN FUNG CENTRE, 264-298 CASTLE PEAK RD TSUEN WAN
Country: HK
Phone: +852--24921168
Fax: +852--82088601
Email: ccops@markmonitor.com

Name Servers Information:

DNS1.SJL.YOUTUBE.COM
DNS2.SJL.YOUTUBE.COM

Re:DNS hijackers block YouTube

[discord5]

Not really relevant, your whois is just showing replies for domains with a "similar" name (when it really shouldn't be doing that). You'll get varying results depending on what whois server you're asking.

YOUTUBE.COM.IS.N0T.AS.1337.AS.WWW.GULLI.COM resolves to a (lol) "hacking" and warez site of some sort. It's just someone having fun with DNS and whois.

Why are you doing a whois when you can't reach youtube? For all intents and purposes, whois is completely useless these days.

As for youtube being down... Meh, probably some routing problem, or some ship accidentally dragging their anchors over googles datacenters.

Not provocation, solidarity

[NIckGorton]

The cartoons were published by many Danish papers after the police foiled a plot to murder the cartoonist. By publishing these cartoons, the papers were stating something important: we stand in solidarity, we don't give in to bullies, and the sword will never be mightier than the pen.

Re:Not provocation, solidarity

[mrex]

I understand supporting free speech, but let's face facts here: drawing a picture of Mohammad wearing a bomb for a turban is pretty much exactly the definition of "provocation".

If you want to defend the right to be provocative, more power to you. But don't try to piss in my face and tell me it's raining: provocation was EXACTLY the goal of the cartoonist and the publishers in this case.

Re:Not provocation, solidarity

[NIckGorton]

I understand supporting free speech, but let's face facts here: drawing a picture of Mohammad wearing a bomb for a turban is pretty much exactly the definition of "provocation".

Its not the right to be provocative or to express solidarity with others in your field that we are talking about. Its the right to free expression.

However, provocation is often used as an excuse to censor. As someone who is used to that excuse, perhaps its more apparent to me.

I'm gay. I am married to another man. We live together and love each other in our nice little house in suburban California. The computer on which I am typing this response, and my partner's XO across the table from me in the coffee shop where I am getting caffeinated both have small rainbow flags on them. When he took off while I was writing this, he leaned over the table and gave me a peck on the cheek.

There are places in the US where what I just typed would make us vulnerable to getting the shit kicked out of us. Having been in places like that, I can tell you the risk is serious. And that risk is used to intimidate people back into the closet. The 14 year old Jr High Student who was murdered this month in Oxnard California is dead undoubtedly because of violent reactions to his behavior, that many people to this day would label 'provocative': He was out as gay, wore effeminate clothing, jewelry and make-up to school. In fact, that is such a common justification for homophobic violence that we even have to have laws that prevent people from using the 'gay panic' defense (that is, a queer person because his behavior was so provocative, incited the defendant to violence.)

The problem is that any behavior viewed from another standpoint can be provocative. Just as the cartoons of Mohammad are provocative to many Muslims, I find these images from Iran to be provocative (especially given the position of militant extremists within Islam who would like to impose Sharia on the entire world): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2dgsZYA1mPY

I defy you to watch that in its entirety and then tell me how its reasonable that people who torture and then put children to death for consensual gay sex shouldn't have to have their delicate sensibilities shattered by such provocation as having their religion (the same one that justifies those murders) be mocked? (Because its the same militant fundamentalist factions that are offended by the cartoons - not all of Islam. In fact many Muslims are far more shocked at the death threats than the existence of the cartoons.)

If you want to defend the right to be provocative, more power to you. But don't try to piss in my face and tell me it's raining: provocation was EXACTLY the goal of the cartoonist and the publishers in this case.

No the goal is to speak truth to violence and hatred. Its hard not to give in and meet that violence and hatred with its reflection. Its hard for me to see that video (and I think hard for most human beings not in that culture of violence) and not want to hate Islam. But I don't. I have worked really hard at not hating Islam. I was the chief resident on call in the ER in Brooklyn's largest trauma center that day, had family in Manhattan on 9/11/01, and had close friends who lost family that day. I can still remember the smell afterwards - and knowing that the noxious air that set my asthmatic lungs into spasm was infused with the bodies of three thousand people. It would have been so easy.... painfully easy to demonize and hate an entire religion and culture. To see them as nothing more than animals who should be locked away safely so they cannot harm human beings.

So I read the Qur'an. Its a beautiful book; simple and very powerful - especially if read from the perspective of someone who is not a believer (and perhaps who is suffering a little PTSD due to the violence of true believers.) I also talked a lot with my co-chief at th

youtube down? bad dns?

[ndmccab]

i can't reach it in the USA right now.

Re:DNS hijackers block YouTube

[Ernesto Alvarez]

I don't agree with you.

If you are suspicious about the spurious entries, these are just additional domains, usually registered with humorous intent (check microsoft.com entry for THE example).

The servers shown in the youtube entry are in fact in a network belonging to youtube.

The problem seems to be that all the packets headed there disappear shortly after entering the US. There must be a problem on a link going out of Miami belonging to PCCW Datacom Services (registered on HK, but the link's name certainly suggests Miami) or on whatever is the next hop.

Maybe someone west of SJC has some data?

Re:DNS hijackers block YouTube

[ndmccab]

~$ whois 208.65.153.253

OrgName:    YouTube, Inc.
OrgID:      YOUTU
Address:    71 E Third Ave
Address:    2nd Floor
City:       San Mateo
StateProv:  CA
PostalCode: 94401
Country:    US

NetRange:   208.65.152.0 - 208.65.155.255
CIDR:       208.65.152.0/22
NetName:    YOUTUBE
NetHandle:  NET-208-65-152-0-1
Parent:     NET-208-0-0-0-0
NetType:    Direct Assignment
NameServer: DNS1.SJL.YOUTUBE.COM
NameServer: DNS2.SJL.YOUTUBE.COM
Comment:
RegDate:    2006-03-02
Updated:    2006-03-09

Pakistan Telecom has FUBAR'd and hijacked IP space

[davidu]

So I'm sitting here this morning in San Francisco and Youtube won't load...

Why?  Pakistan Telecom decided to hijack their IP space.  Most likely it was an accident.

For those of you speaking BGP, here's the dirt:

rtr1.pao#sh ip bgp 208.65.153.238 255.255.252.0 longer-prefixes

*   Network          Next Hop            Metric LocPrf Weight Path
*  208.65.152.0/22  140.174.21.165                100      0 2914 174 36561 i
*>                  157.130.201.129               100      0 701 174 36561 i
*                   38.103.65.96                   90      0 174 36561 i
*  208.65.153.0     38.103.65.96                   90      0 174 3491 17557 i
*                   157.130.201.129               100      0 701 3491 17557 i
*>                  140.174.21.165                100      0 2914 3491 17557 i
rtr1.pao#

Re:DNS hijackers block YouTube

[Teun]

Oops, I was too quick...

Why not just fight YouTube with YouTube?

[Anonymous Meoward]

Idiots. You'd think they'd just post a bawling Chris Crocker yelling "Leave Muhammad alone!" and be done with it..

Hail Mother YouTube

[carp3_noct3m]

According to researchers of Our Mother You Tube, offensive action by spy submarines of aliens have decided to cut the many millions of cables that run from YouTube Island to the rest of the world. The US is claiming a couple of fishing ships dragged their anchors over the cables. UK says they have new training for the SAS where they can swim to depths of 10 miles with no scuba gear and do top secret *****. Tinfoil hats are being sold in the streets of Japan (hey it called style!). Porn Popups run rampant and take over the interwebs. Tubes are being lost left and right. I am an alien posting this to inform you poor souls, because it is the precursor to alien invasion and if I get caught warning you then no telling what will #$^(@#*% NO CARRIER

Re:DNS hijackers block YouTube

[aaronmcdaid]

That address (208.65.153.253) doesn't work for me (but thanks for the quick response). Does it work for you?

When I do whois and nslookup youtube.com I get that address (208.65.153.253) and the same result as in the grandparent post. This doesn't look like a genuine Youtube record:

...Server Name: YOUTUBE.COM.ZZZZZ.GET.LAID.AT.WWW.SWINGINGCOMMUNITY.COM
...Server Name: YOUTUBE.COM.IS.N0T.AS.1337.AS.WWW.GULLI.COM

I'm in Ireland, not Pakistan, so I should be able to see something! Am I getting an IP routing problem, or just poisoned DNS?

Pakistan DNS hijack's Youtube!

[Xelios]

Youtube.com is down right now because Pakistan Telecom has decided to (accidentally probably) hijack their IP address space which means that nobody in the world can reach Youtube. This isnt an OpenDNS issue. Just letting you all know.

Post on OpenDNS

Re:Pakistan DNS hijack's Youtube!

[Wonko the Sane]

I forgot, what is the reason we haven't implemented DNSSEC and IPSEC again?

Re:Pakistan DNS hijack's Youtube!

[Wonko the Sane]

It would prevent a man-in-the-middle attack, but doesn't help with the DoS (as in this case)

I guess we need cryptographically signed routing.

Re:Pakistan DNS hijack's Youtube!

[houghi]

Mod parent as insightfull.

Good news everyone!

[Ernesto Alvarez]

I know it's bad netiquette to reply to yourself, but I've got news!

I managed to get in contact with youtube using TOR. The servers are not down, there must be a hell of a mess in the net somewhere between Miami and San Jose.

Try several times, until you hit an exit node capable of reaching them, let the page load. When the video player is loaded, you'll be handed off to a google server for the content. Once you're handed off, you can resume communications without TOR. Be sure to check first if you can reach the google server with traceroute, though.

PS: It's slower than molasses.
PS2: An open proxy could work too.
PS3: Interesting that bit about BGP in this subthread. That could cause all that disruption. Any news from west of SJC to confirm?

Re:DNS hijackers block YouTube

[techitorial]

It is back up - maybe a bit fast on the conclusions

Re:God

[bigstrat2003]

Holy shit. This is the saddest day for /. that I've ever seen: a post claiming religion does nothing but evil (obviously untrue), and that every pastor, priest, etc, should be murdered in their sleep is modded fucking insightful.

Sorry, but calling for violence against innocent people is in no way insightful, mods. And Mr. AC, consider this: if you'd slaughtered the thousands of religious leaders who have done no wrong, all that innocent blood would be on your hands... and you'd be no better than you make them out to be.

Re:Screw Mohammed.

[DemoLiter3]

I'm in Germany: youtube.com can be resolved, but traceroute to 208.65.153.253 fails from Arcor network.
Works fine through DFN though.

Re:WHY IS THIS IN POLITICS????!!!

[mwlewis]

And if you think Pakistan is in the Middle East, you need a map.

IP hijacking, not DNS hijacking

[Nigel Stepp]

Not that it's really important, but many are saying there is DNS hijacking going on.

It's actually IP hijacking (from what I'm reading on the NANOG list anyway). An ISP in Pakistan is advertising a "more specific route" to Youtube's ip space. So, routers are taking the traffic there instead.

It could easily be accidental, like someone not having the right filter in place to block that advertisement going out to everyone.

I hope they are enjoying all of the extra packets.

Re:God

[Daimanta]

Have you ever wondered how radicalism came to be? From reactions to people like you.

Smokescreen for government corruption.

[ruinevil]

The government spokesman claims that its due to blasphemous videos on youtube, but you have to realize they just shut down a television station because it allowed two banned television anchors work there; anchors who said negative things about the Musharraf government. The entire nation is under martial law and opposition parties are talking about Musharraf rigging the vote. Right before he declared martial law there was courts were look into allegations of election fraud, but he removed the judges from the case immediately after martial law started.


Pakistan is currently run by a former military leader who gained power in a military coup d'etat, and has in reality always been run by the military at some level. They are a Muslim country only in name; their mullahs/imams have little affect on the government; sort of comparable to Libya, except Pakistan pretends to have a democratic society. Read into the atrocities committed by their military during the Bangladeshi Liberation War ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1971_Bangladesh_atrocities ). I read an essay written by Henry Kissinger who compared it to the rape of Nanjing. This is the same guy who advised Nixon to aid Pakistan, in order to prevent Soviets from gaining a foothold in the area.

Re:DNS hijackers block YouTube

[aaronmcdaid]

It's back working for me now. And I've realised now that it doesn't seem to have been a DNS problem after all - please ignore my posts on this thread!

as an atheist jew

[superwiz]

It might a bit ironic that I would be the one to say that pride is still a deadly sin and that Islam still consider Jesus a profit of God (ie, his saying that pride is a deadly sin makes it God's word). Having said that "offenses to religion" are nothing but wounded pride.

Re:God

[bitserf]

Please.

Religions were behaving in a radical manner this before atheism was common in the West. Now they just have a scapegoat - people who are rational (or in religion-speak, "godless").

Re:Probably Hiding the Same place

[phoenix321]

Moderated as troll and rightly so:

We had absolutely massive demonstrations against the Vietnam war and against the Iraq war, in the US and in Europe. Participation in the Iraq war was the primary reason a number of European governments were voted down in the following elections. The Vietnam war was the reason for a regime change in the US and a pretty thorough turnaround in US foreign policy in the 1970s.

Same in Israel, as there were thousands of protesters against extreme zionism and against building any more settlement outside the Green Line.

The only muslim country that ever saw mass demonstrations against islam was Turkey, but even there an overwhelming majority elected Erdogan and his theistic party, the AKP. All other muslim countries not only remained silent on 9-11 and similar events, but actively celebrated.

Re:Screw Mohammed.

[phoenix321]

Works fine through Arcor here in Germany. Snappy response and buffering OK.

Maybe just a server hiccup or another submarine cable? :)

Re:God

[Cederic]

calling for violence against innocent people is in no way insightful yeah, but he didn't. he called for violence against imams, priests, rabbis and other religious leaders.

Re:God

[ChromeAeonium]

No one mentioned atheism. The 'slit their throats in the night' guy's attitude is what causes radicalism. Unless, of course, you're trying to associate rationality/atheism with genocide, and judging by the false dichotomy you set up, that wouldn't surprise me.

Pharao is a god amongts men, that's why he leads

[Scrameustache]

Religion is also a large part of the reason for suppression of knowledge, increases in fear and the idea that "ideas are dangerous.

Yeah, religion is evil. Just look at those religious wackos like Stalin and Brezhnev who killed millions and sent more to death camps or psychiatric hospitals just for reading the wrong books Oh wait, they were atheists.

Their religion was their own cult of personality.

The fact that they knew no god would stop them doesn't mean they didn't use religion for their own ends. They banned other churches because that was how they treated opposition, be it political, journalistic or religious, their monopoly was total on every front.

Re:WHY IS THIS IN POLITICS????!!!

[cammoblammo]

Ron Paul, is that you?

Re:God

[bigstrat2003]

Most of whom are innocent people. If you seriously believe that the majority of those people are evil men/women who deserve to have their throats cut in their sleep, you're fucking insane. Or evil. Either way, those people don't all deserve to die. Most of them don't even deserve to die.

Hypocrisy times a thousand

[Blancmange]

It's funny that a bunch of Muslims get all upset over a picture of Prophet Mohammad Bomb-for-a-head, while not making nearly quite a fuss over a bunch of Danish Muslim leaders distributing their own image of Paedophile Mohammed (an obvious reference to Mo having a 9 year old girl for a wife[1]) in order to incite more hatred against Danish cartoonists.

The fanatics seem to be oblivious to the Streisand Effect. The Mohammad Image Archive makes for fascinating reading.

[1] It's immaculate paraphilia, not paedophilia. Honest, m'lud!

Denmark the country of freedom... oh wait!

[Heddahenrik]

Nice that we have the freedom loving country of Denmark that stands up for the little people's right to ridicule Muslims! All people should have these right, unless, of course, they upset the people who have bought more politicians than the entire world's oil companies can afford. So ThePirateBay.org is still blocked by this "freedom loving" country.

Re:Imho...

[ScrewMaster]

Because the same statement applies to the USA.

Absolutely. What's your point?

Disgusted by Pakistan AND Slashdot

[oceaniv]

I've been lurking on these boards for about two-three years and the amount of hatred and ignorance on these boards whenever something that has to do with "Islam" comes up is just plain disgusting. Captain Obvious says: 1. A vicious dictatorship, which has recently been accused of the murder of one of the most prominent politicians in the world (Bhutto), decides to ban an important source of information (youtube) from their citizens... (Go see the number of Pakistani political movies on Bhutto's death) 2. They use Islam as an scapegoat to justify their actions so as divert/dilute attention from their personal political motivation by passing on the "blame" to the larger (1 billion) Muslim community 3. At the moment of reading "Islam" and "censor" the so-called freedom-sensitive western slashdotter abandons all rational thought and begins foaming at the mouth. Good job Slashdotters, your intelligence (or rather lack of) is blinding.

Re:Disgusted by Pakistan AND Slashdot

[junglee_iitk]

I have understood one fact after spending so much time on Slashdot - "Religion is bad". Everything that goes on in any religion based article can be best summarized as follows:
1) All Religions are bad.
2) Islam is a big problem.
3) Killing is good, I don't know why people are against it.

Cue ad-hominem replies.

It is a karma-fest, don't dare posting anything critical of group thinking!!!

Re:Disgusted by Pakistan AND Slashdot

[Alsee]

You almost have a point.

In one case you have government imposed censorship because of this religious crap.
In the other you have government imposed censorship because of this religious crap.

It really doesn't make that big a difference and doesn't invalidate the complaints whether the censorship was religiously motivated or if it was politically motivated and religion supplied the cover enabling the government to go ahead and do it.

At the moment of reading "Islam" and "censor" the so-called freedom-sensitive western slashdotter abandons all rational thought and begins foaming at the mouth. Good job Slashdotters, your intelligence (or rather lack of) is blinding.

On the global stage Islam does currently seem to have a a notably more frequent issue with notably more severe cases of this sort of problem, but to be honest I am far more "foaming at the mouth" at in-the-name-of-Christianity variants of this sort of thing. The domestic (Christian) stuff is usually rather less severe but it affects me directly and I consider it a far greater personal threat, and it is far more worthy of my mental and emotional and time investment because it is pretty much infinitely more likely that I personally might have some meaningful impact in the domestic arena.

-

Re:Disgusted by Pakistan AND Slashdot

[oceaniv]

No what you don't understand it that religion is not being supplied as a cover for Pakistanis who are well aware of the motivations of their government, religion is being used a scapegoat to pass on the blame to the larger Muslim community at a time when the West is ready to blame almost anything on the "muzzies". The government doesn't care whether their "reason" for action may have any repercussions for anyone, they want an easy pass, and the easiest pass is to divert attention away from the more So instead of saying "WTF is wrong with Musharraff...", it becomes "WTF is wrong with muslims" and since Muslims are such a diverse group of people, stereotypes are brought up and people start directing unfounded and quite frankly disgusting bigotry towards anyone who happens to be Muslim.

Re:WHY IS THIS IN POLITICS????!!!

[Zedekiah]

We're both talking about the country that shares its western border with Afghanistan and Iran, right? -.-

Re:Imho...

[ScrewMaster]

However, in my country's defense, I might add that we talking issues of somewhat different scale here. The Muslims are upset about a fucking CARTOON, and are sufficiently upset about said cartoon to issue death threats. President Bush was referring to our response to the murder of several thousand American citizens and visitors to this country. I don't agree with Bush on much of anything, but let's keep matters in perspective.

[OT] Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[Headcase88]

Yeah don't worry, everyone hates spelling Nazis. I think they're even one tier below the common troll.

You lucky, lucky......

[RageOfReason]

Lucky buggers (Pakistanis I mean); I just spent an hour on You Tube and noticed my brain rot accelerated. Yet I go back, occasionally, for more. I guess it's like needing to look at your shit in the bowl before flushing; unpleasant yet necessary to check-in occasionally.

LGF member or Supporter? Try again.

[sethstorm]

I wouldn't be looking at a LGF supporter/member or their works as a source - they're just as bad with handling Islam.

It is an instinct of theirs to (rabidly) disparage Islam. To view them in any good light ranks up with heresy/untruth/terroristic beliefs at worst, "appeasment" at best. Searching their site on the subject seems not to come up with much thought to the existence of Islam that is not fanatical(much like themselves).

I can only hope that you enjoy the vitriol over there. There is plenty of it, and little of anything else.

Re:DNS hijackers block YouTube

[complete loony]

http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/nanog/msg06299.html

As you guys probably know Youtube's IP's are being hijacked. Trace:
~ $ host youtube.com
youtube.com has address 208.65.153.253
youtube.com has address 208.65.153.238
youtube.com has address 208.65.153.251
[Same /24]

701 3491 17557
64.74.137.253 (metric 1) from 66.151.144.148 (66.151.144.148)
Origin IGP, metric 100, localpref 100, valid, external
Community: 65010:300
Last update: Sun Feb 24 11:33:05 2008 [PST8PDT]
3491 17557
216.218.135.205 from 216.218.135.205 (216.218.252.164)
Origin IGP, metric 100, localpref 100, valid, external, best
Last update: Sun Feb 24 10:47:57 2008 [PST8PDT]

So, it seems that youtube's ip block has been hijacked by a more
specific prefix being advertised. This is a case of IP hijacking, not
case of DNS poisoning, youtube engineers doing something stupid, etc.
For people that don't know. The router will try to get the most specific
prefix. This is by design, not by accident. This is a case of censorship
on the internet. Anyways, I hope this doesn't get into a political
situation, and someone stops this.

What action are you going to take? Are you going to filter
announcements from AS17557, or just filter that specific announcement?
Considering youtube is a fairly high-traffic website I think that other
operators are just going to start filtering that AS. This is a great
example of global politics getting in the way of honest corporatism.
This is also an example of how vulnerable the internet is, and how lax
providers are in their filtering policies. I don't know how large
Pakistani Telecom is, but it I bet its not large enough that PCCW should
be allowing it to advertise anything.

Mr. Gilmore's claim is totally wrong.

[Anonymous Coward]

The amusing thing in this case is that Pakistan screwed up their censorship an managed to knock youtube off the *entire* internet for over two hours.

The net didn't interpret censorship as damage and route around it; the net interpreted censorship as a superior path and routed everyone into it.

The belief that technology alone will protect us from political oppression is mistaken and harmful.

Tagged: lgfbait for reference to LGF user & Is

[sethstorm]

Tagged this one as lgfbait, as well as !streisandeffect !religionofpeace !dontlookatit

It seems that if you mention anything (usually positive to Islam) connected to the Muslim faith, it seems to attract LGF members/(blind) supporters like moths to a flame. The irony is that place can't even find a good word to say on that subject. Perhaps a corollary to Godwin's law would be in order.

Now that this has happened, how do we secure BGP!?

[ejoe_mac]

So, what are the steps to secure the IP space in BGP? How likely is this to occur again? What if Pakistan couldn't subnet accurately? sBGP, where are you?

Re:You're ignoring one important fact

[@madeus]

Girls don't like to give head to uncut guys.

It's a fact. Not really, I don't know why on earth you would think that. Maybe if the guys are not clean, but then it's likely to be an unpleasant experience in any case.

And the truth is male circumcision is no big deal. It's certainly no better or worse than people who have their genitals pierced, and people routinely have baby girl's infants pierced. Again, it's not a big deal. BIG difference (ethnically and in practice) on whether you have it done as a child, or as adult (say mid teens onwards). Not the same as having a your ears pierced. Apart from the tearing/complications (which shouldn't happen when carried out by a competent surgeon) it absolutely effects sensitivity.

Now I'm not sure to what extent the effect true for everyone (I have no way of knowing), but the hardening of the surface that lies under the foreskin that takes place - eventually - in all males (for which there is a name, that I forget and I'm too lazy to look up) happens not as a teenager (as it normally would), but as child in those who are circumcised. I can attest that I would definitely missed out if I had been circumcised. Again, I don't know if that's true for everyone or to what extent, but that's absolutely true.

You DO know that's a big part of the reason why it's practiced by religious groups on children before they reach sexual maturity, right (either as infants, or if not then then just before at around age 11)?

i.e. to stop them from playing with themselves as much by making it less enjoyable (and angering god / going blind / etc.) - just as girls were circumcised at the same age, for the same reasons. God forbid anyone should be left to enjoy the one positive aspect of going through puberty...

Sorry if you missed out. Your parents are assholes. Not my fault.

You know, in france at one time, women didn't shave their armpits. Now women shave their public hair completely. In porn films, yes. In practice? Depends on the woman (and possibly how long you've been going out.), Frankly I think everyone should make an effort and trim but I'm quite happy with au natural (as long as it's not out of control). I find it off putting when women shave off all their pubic hair, it's just weird IMO, I like women, not girls. YMMV. But that's yet another topic.

Re:Screw Mohammed.

[Liquidrage]

Really? Their hiding in plain sight? I'm sick of giving the "nice" Muslims a free pass. It's about time they get control of their own countries/societies then. Inaction doesn't do anything. And don't even bother trying to compare the US to Iran or Syria. Yes, it would be hard. But Islamic society in many countries is not improving. It's going in the wrong direction. And these nice reasonable people you point out aren't doing crap to stop it apparently.

That is duckspeak, citizen!

[Blancmange]

Your post is a fine demonstration a pure ad-hominem attack. You haven't addressed any of my points or any of the question raised by the site (and the BBC, even). Of particular interest is the spurious Mohammand-porn distribution contrived by imams[1] and the fanciful myth that it was always forbidden to depict the Prophet Mohammad[2].

It is an instinct of theirs to (rabidly) disparage Islam

That's so incredibly corny. It sounds just like "The Poles suck anti-semitism in with their mother's milk."

[1] You'd think being all priestly and well-studied in the Quaran would mean the imams would be imbued with a capacity for moral reasoning and a desire for righteousness. Instead the imams proved to be as morally decrepit as Ann Coulter or some of the most infamous Catholic popes. What hope, then, do the millions of Pudding Muslims have of benefiting from the supposed glory of the Quran?

[2] So which bunch of Muslims are to be sent to Islamic Hell? The ones who drew all those pictures of Mohammed, or the ones who commit the deadly sin of idolatry by making up a spurious or derivative religious law?

precautionary principle

[Gary W. Longsine]

You missed, with the "back off unless you have a double-blind study bit. Insistence on a double blind study is not the demonstration of a rational scientific approach to the issue that it might at first appear. In fact, you have it upside down, in this case. Demanding a double-blind study to support action to *stop* an optional surgical removal of an otherwise healthy body part violates the precautionary principle for example. It's a non-controversial argument to claim that cutting off part of a healthy body for religious, cultural, or other non-medical reasons, without evidence that this *does not* cause harm is at the very least a violation of the precautionary principle.

There also considerable evidence that the practice does cause actual harm, greater in some cases than in others.

Male circumcision - see the harm to get a balanced picture
Circumcision Complications

Consider another example. Cigarettes are full of substances which cause cancer in laboratory rats. Where are the double blind studies supporting the claim that cigarette smoking causes cancer in people? Well, there really aren't any, because it isn't ethical to conduct these types of studies which would require exposing a group of human volunteers to known or suspected carcinogens. There are other ways to get reasonably reliable data on which to base public policy, however.

The onus in the case of physical mutilation (circumcision of either gender certainly qualifies) should be on those doing the mutilating of the defenseless child. There are no double blind studies which demonstrate that we have not deprived our children of the most sensitive part of their anatomy, and that we haven't permanently deprived them of maximum sexual enjoyment. (All those folk who cry out on any political issue, Think of the children! forget to consider or care about what happens if they mange to make it to adulthood.) With respect to circumcision, however, there are recent studies which indicate that male circumcision might reduce the spread of AIDS. The evidence isn't conclusive, but it does complicate the issue of male circumcision.

Although it might seem clear that female genital mutilation is rather more dramatically barbaric, male circumcision is by no means a harmless practice. Perhaps not all the patients are harmed, but some are undoubtedly harmed, irrevocably.

Finally, it's worth noting that although the extent of the legal and human rights of children remain the subject of debate, it's clear that most modern democratic societies at least, agree that children have some rights. You may be the parent of YOUR children, but the system of laws governing your country almost certainly limit what you may do to them. You certainly would do hard time, and or have the children taken away, in any western democray for amputating part of their nose or their ear or their hand or foot. Why not for amputating part of their penis?

Re:precautionary principle

[MightyYar]

It's a non-controversial argument to claim that cutting off part of a healthy body for religious, cultural, or other non-medical reasons, without evidence that this *does not* cause harm is at the very least a violation of the precautionary principle. But on the other side you have 6000 years of practice, with apparent safety. I'm just arguing that the burden of proof is flipped from the way they are presenting it. If you hope to change human behavior, you need to have some evidence. They are trying to paint circumcision as monstrous, which they have no evidence for.

There also considerable evidence that the practice does cause actual harm, greater in some cases than in others. Those two articles are flawed - and I describe why elsewhere in the thread. But you should have been very suspicious when you saw the title of the web site you copied them from! You don't get a balanced view from a propaganda site! In any case, neither source is a proper scientific study.

Cigarettes are full of substances which cause cancer in laboratory rats. And even then we don't rip them out of people's hands, do we? But at least then there are NUMEROUS studies showing harm from cigarettes. No such study seems to exist for infant circumcision.

Perhaps not all the patients are harmed, but some are undoubtedly harmed, irrevocably. This is certainly true, but is also true of other unnecessary activities that children are put through. How many die in auto accidents? Playground accidents? Bike accidents?

And then there are the other childrearing issues... are they properly nourished? Are they properly educated? Have they been abused? All of these things harm far more kids than circumcision appears to - but you wouldn't know because no one seems to have a proper study. The energy here these people are expending on something that is mostly harmless seems absurd to me.

You certainly would do hard time, and or have the children taken away, in any western democray for amputating part of their nose or their ear or their hand or foot. Why not for amputating part of their penis? Because amputating an ear, hand, or foot would present demonstrable harm? It's a pointless argument to make, because no culture that I am aware of does such a thing. I'd compare it more with piercing of ears/nose.

Re:God

[Cederic]

I didn't say they deserved to have their throats cut in their sleep.

I do believe they are evil men/women.

They must be. They perpetuate myths and pursue agendas that harm society and subjugate entire populations.

Organised religion is evil, by whichever measure you use. Hell, all religions are condemned by at least one other religion for being heretical, so even religions think they're evil.

I personally don't advocate the murder of everybody that promotes religious beliefs. I do wish they'd all just stfu and try doing some genuine good for the world.

Re:God

[Lord Kano]

I do believe they are evil men/women.

You're entitled to believe anything that you wish, even if it's wrong.

They must be. They perpetuate myths and pursue agendas that harm society and subjugate entire populations.

You are ignorant of history. Organized religions are far from perfect. They're not always even good, but they have done much that was positive. It was primarily Christians who harbored Jews who sought to escape the holocaust.

For thousands of years, Christians and Jews have been the world's greatest benefactors of charity. For over a thousand years, Muslims have provided for widows and orphans. It was because of those religions that the western views of women evolved. Women were once seen as no different than property. Because of practitioners of Judiasm and Christianity, the treatment in society evolved. Islam actually codifies rights for women.

LK

Christianity

[Per Abrahamsen]

My problem with Islam is that when a person is externally forced to behave well, that might make the streets safer if done effectively, but that person is still not a good person. Actually, that is my main problem with Christianity. Judging a person not on how they behave, but how they are inside. That is just sick. People should be accountable for their actions, not for their thoughts. That is one of the few things Islam get right. Actually, maybe it is the only thing Islam gets right.

Here we go - again...

[jandersen]

So, it's "freedom of speech" time all over again. What hypocrisy; what people in general mean with that is simply that they want to have that right for themselves; they don't care much for the freedom of speech for people who have certain viewpoints that are not popular. This is not a particularly American phenomenon, that is the way of all societies; there will always be certain viewpoints that will be met with a choir of "shut up" and "you shouldn't be saying that". It's just that Americans want to curb the freedom of speech in other ways than the Iranians.

Because, make no mistake here - this is not just the Iranian government that want to steal the freedom of the people; there is no doubt that a substantial part of the people of Iraq that feel this way. Compare to yourself - assuming that you are a devout Christan - wouldn't you object to people insulting Jesus? Blasphemy is still a felony in many countries, even in our part of the world, and so is "hate-speech" and inciting to unrest. And while we may agree that freedom of speech is important, it is also well worth remembering that it took us a couple of hundred years to get here, and that different societies follow their own, different paths. Let me remind everybody, that there was, in fact, a time when the Muslim world was the beacon of freedom and enlightenment while Christianity was a backwater. These things change, and instead of pointing fingers we should concentrate on not throwing away our own freedoms.

Don't bring us Pakistanis into the 21st century

[phaana]

Hi, I'm a Pakistani, I strongly disagree with our government's action to ban youtube in Pakistan, but I also don't think it's anybody else's place to pass judgments on it. It's an internal matter for us, no need for anybody to get all hot and bothered. Oh, and please let us bring ourselves into the 21st century, you guys have quite a big pair of "bringing" burdens on your able backs already, so try to get them into the 21st. Regards.

Re:Don't bring us Pakistanis into the 21st century

[shentino]

True words of wisdom.

I'm an American citizen and I have my fair share of gripes about our current administration as well.

Honestly, I'm getting fed up with the way that Bush is trying to play "World's Police Chief".

We've got enough dang problems domestically to be worrying about anyone else.

Re:Don't bring us Pakistanis into the 21st century

[phaana]

Thanks! That said, I do feel sorry for the fact that one of our networking guys mucked up youtube for the whole world. But that's because we lag so damn far behind in training and education that it was just a matter of ignorance. And if any concerned Americans are reading this, don't give us weapons, give us books and help us get our people educated. That's the best answer to any extremism; though I'm happy that we completely demolished the religious right in the elections just held, yay.

Re:You're ignoring one important fact

[mdwh2]

It's certainly no better or worse than people who have their genitals pierced, and people routinely have baby girl's infants pierced. Again, it's not a big deal.

Piercing a baby's genitals is okay??? I don't think body piercing for babies (anywhere, let alone genital) should be legal.

Then all of the sudden you want it to be illegal. People like you are exactly why we can't have real democracy.

No, we want assault against non-consenting participants to be illegal. Consenting adults should be able to do what they like.

In fact, that just shows how screwed up things are, in that some acts of injury can be legal to do to a non-consenting child, but not between consenting adults (at least in the UK).

Show me...

[Fuzzypig]

To para-phrase Dr Johnson is Blackadder.... A peaceful, tolerant religion is like a dog that speaks. Very rare! A peaceful, tolerant religion that practices what it preaches, is like a dog that that speaks Norwegian. Even rarer!

Re:God

[CmdrGravy]

I think the key point you miss is that they are obviously not innocent, they're all as guilty as hell and they know it.

You have heard of orginal sin I take it ? A charming tenent of religion which brands everyone a sinner from the moment they're born, well if that's the way they want it then that's the way should have it, guilty as charged, lock and load blam blam blam. Lets make the world a much better place.

Re:Screw Mohammed.

[deesine]

Fantastic head-in-sand maneuver there. Well done!

Re:It's stupid anyway.

[roguetrick]

Christians have subjected themselves to bouts of iconoclasm in the past, the major one I'm guessing would be the Reformation. Its more the Hadith that outlaws the images however, than the Koran itself.

Perhaps...

[Greyfox]

If your society is so frail that someone saying something will shatter it, you may have bigger problems than people being able to say stuff.

Anit-Google, anti-Wikipedia cartoons more popular

[Everyman]

I think the Pakistan situation may be related to what I'm seeing with my google-watch.org traffic. I've been running this site since 2002. The traffic to the home page is usually around 1000 a day. The home page contains anti-Google and anti-Wikipedia cartoons on a rotating basis.

Yesterday I noticed a surge in home page traffic:
2008-02-14 1152
2008-02-15 1062
2008-02-16 828
2008-02-17 949
2008-02-18 1053
2008-02-19 1179
2008-02-20 987
2008-02-21 1103
2008-02-22 1031
2008-02-23 2274
2008-02-24 6873

This traffic comes in without a referrer and almost none of it goes deeper into the site. The IP addresses are from all over. I have not been able to find any evidence of significant news coverage in the last few days that mentions Google-Watch.org without linking to it. (If it was mentioned without a link, folks pasting it into their address bar would show up in my logs without a referrer.)

Could it be related to the Pakistani routing situation? The redirect might be happening in some small corner of someone's router access -- someone who is sympathetic with those objecting to depictions of the Prophet Muhammad. Is this tit for tat, trading Muhammad depictions for anti-Google and anti-Wikipedia cartoons?

I added a second static IP address to google-watch.org yesterday, for round-robin load sharing. The load immediately split between the two servers, as expected. My conclusion is that the redirect requires a DNS lookup by the end-user. If it was a static IP redirect, this unusual traffic would not have found the second server.

Man judges by the outward appearance

[CustomDesigned]

You are correct in that there are passels of modern Christian advice telling people to judge by the heart, not by outward appearance, for instance here. However, these people have missed the point of the passage - that only God is capable of judging the heart. We people can only see the outward appearance, and make inferences about the heart - but we are never entirely accurate. In the passage in question, Samuel only knew about David's heart because God was supernaturally telling him.

Judgements of intent - imperfect as they are - are an integral part of justice. It is the difference between degrees of murder. But these are not the same as judging the heart. Determining whether a crime was intended or accidental is a question of intelligent design (of humans, not some higher power). The new hate-crime laws in America are examples of human justice trying to judge the heart - with breathtaking injustice as the result, along with pervasive invasion of privacy to gather "evidence" for judging the heart (be careful what books you buy).

Not like I didn't see that one coming...

[sethstorm]

Your post is a fine demonstration a pure ad-hominem attack. You haven't addressed any of my points or any of the question raised by the site (and the BBC, even). Of particular interest is the spurious Mohammand-porn distribution contrived by imams[1] and the fanciful myth that it was always forbidden to depict the Prophet Mohammad[2]. Except that the source itself has an interest that is contradictory to showing Islam in a good light. Highlighting that interest as well as the interests on the other end of their comments yields a clearer picture. They would rather look for examples of the extreme and state that as the accepted norm on their site. This does well to explain their view on events(such as this one) related to their field of interest- there is quite a large amount of data from which to draw.

That's so incredibly corny. It sounds just like "The Poles suck anti-semitism in with their mother's milk." Well, if not for the truth to it. That's only scratching the surface, but I see a ton of material that has them "looking for a fight" regularly with Islam. Should you point the heat in the other direction(Israel)- sarcasm may not even save you.

[1] You'd think being all priestly and well-studied in the Quaran would mean the imams would be imbued with a capacity for moral reasoning and a desire for righteousness. Instead the imams proved to be as morally decrepit as Ann Coulter or some of the most infamous Catholic popes. What hope, then, do the millions of Pudding Muslims have of benefiting from the supposed glory of the Quran? Human imperfection.

[2] So which bunch of Muslims are to be sent to Islamic Hell? The ones who drew all those pictures of Mohammed, or the ones who commit the deadly sin of idolatry by making up a spurious or derivative religious law? Should that judgment call be made, it will be made by the appropriate party. Said party does not have (human) imperfection and does not go by only one name.

Re:Why not to stop making fun?

[superwiz]

can't we just stop making fun of each other to live in peace? The premise of this question is wrong. Making fun of each other is not a violation of peace. Violence is a violation of peace. Mockery is bad manners -- not violence. A civil society must tolerate bad manners. If nothing else, they are a form of descent against the opinions of those towards whom good manners are not observed. Europe also tolerates descent against Christianity. So your assertion of this behavior being a cowardly attempt to take pot shots at those outside of their reach is misplaced.

Re:Probably Hiding the Same place

[phoenix321]

You have not seen a single jewish or christian person to speak up against Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo or Jenin?

You surely have to get out of that basement more often. And the people upmodding you as well, come on, be real and don't fall for the rhetoric figure of "The Strawman". Facts are this

- there are few to no events done by "The West" that no Westerner complained about.
- most controversial events in "The West" has thousands of protesters, usually on both sides

- there are almost no events done by "The Ummah" where Muslims complained about.
- most controversial events happening in "The Ummah" draw no protesters and/or heavy persecution of those that would protest.

That someone found an outrageous piece of written garbage that no protesters rallied against is pretty amusing, but not indicative of usual procedures in "The West". First, it's paper, and paper doesn't blush. Then, "some people from country A do X" is much weaker than "almost all people from country B do X".

So, you finally found out that we "Westerners" are not perfect. Big deal. I have another idea: if you "Muslims" stop the violence, we stop our evil press releases and our incredibly evil Mohammed cartoons. Stop killing people and we will stop calling you violent. How's that?

Re:It's stupid anyway.

[Lord Kano]

How many Christians would be offended by this...

• A picture of the Virgin Mary having sex with a pig. There is a cartoon bubble extending from her mouth and in between moans she says "Well, I'm not eating it."

That's similar to how Muslims view a picture of Muhammad with a bomb for a turban.

LK

This is not just the islamic problem

[wolfenok]

Governments of all countries sometimes block information that is not suitable for it. For example in my country the government always blocks some opposite sites. And some people think that is it normal Do not know what does those people think about their lifes its inconceivable for me, to understand them. I found my only way to solve that kind of ****. Im using VPN tunneling service from www.strongvpn.com , actually the US IP it gives to me I can surf all internet, and do not depend to any policy. Hope this information will help

Re:Probably Hiding the Same place

[SRA8]

Since you argued that not a single Muslim protested 9-11, then yes, i would have to counter with a wildly hyperbolic statement that I made. Cut-n-paste your neo-Nazi literature somewhere else. Do some web searches and you'd find plenty of Muslims condemned 9-11. We also condemn neo-Nazi's like yourself.