I believe the woman (the owner of the body) should be able to remove unwanted things from her body. This has nothing to do with abortion; in once instance, the baby is already born (and therefore abortion is not necessary), and in the other, the baby is still in the woman's body and therefore subject to whatever she wants to do with it. If the baby is independent, then it will probably eventually grow up to be an adult that's part of human society (and as I said, it's no longer in the woman's body, so abortion is no longer relevant) and therefore I believe its body is its own.
A lot of people who get lung cancer later wish that they hadn't smoked, even if they don't have direct evidence that *their specific case of lung cancer* is directly related to smoking
Actually, you (or whatever posted that) said that you'd be angry at your parents if you contracted one of those things and found out they didn't get you a circumcision. I was simply curious to know how you'd know it was because you weren't circumcised. The studies often cited have been questioned time and time again, and plenty of circumcised people do get HIV and such.
Except that when they're a baby, there is no guarantee that it will happen. You don't chop off body parts (or parts of them) as a prevention measure; you do it when you need to. Well, that's the ideal situation to me, anyway.
Abortion, to me, has to do with the right of the mother to get rid of the baby in her body (not necessarily kill it, but that can be allowed if it's the only option). In this case, the baby is already born, and yet they want to force it to undergo an unnecessary medical procedure. Now that it's out of her body, there is no reason for abortion, so it's not really the same.
You may as well argue that all pro-choice advocates shouldn't mind child abuse.
Thank goodness. I thought you were advocating something else, but it turns out that you're just opting to give people the choice once they turn 18 (or something such as that).
My 2 cents: let people do whatever they wish so long as it does not cause major harm to society.
Good to hear! I'll just beat my children, then. Not your child, not your business, and it doesn't cause major harm to society. I can punch you in the face, too. Society won't fall apart. It's not that big of a deal.
If it doesn't major harm, it doesn't matter!
then it's none of your business
Only a useful thing to say if someone asks a question they don't know the answer to. If they know something, they can criticize you and act against you if they so please. Saying "none of your business" is rather useless in almost every other case, but you don't have to listen to their criticisms, either.
2. There is no proof that most circumcised males suffer major harm from the ritual/operation.
Suffering "major harm" is not necessary.
Why do people think it's okay to release studies saying circumcision is harmful and should be banned but as soon as a counter-study comes out they cry foul?
I don't know. I'm sure the same is true of some individuals belonging to the [other side]. As for me, whether or not it's extremely harmful is inconsequential to my reasons for wanting it banned (although if it was found to be extremely harmful, that would add another reason).
As for letting the child decide: that's bullshit.
I think they argue for letting the 18 year old decide. In any case, staying in diapers, going to school, and whatever other analogies you can think of are quite different than forcing a child to undergo an unnecessary medical procedure with negligible benefits that is very likely irreversible.
Perhaps this is a surprise to you, but there are some things that parents legally cannot do to their children. Currently, forcing children (the parents, anyway) to undergo male circumcision is legal, but that may change. And if it does, obviously that's just another thing that parents won't be able to do.
I don't know why people keep trotting this out. No one (that I see) is saying that all memorization is bad. I claim that it's not always useful. For instance, it isn't really necessary to know the result of 16*9 off the top of your head.
They have to learn facts along with the method.
Only when extremely useful. Otherwise you waste their time and rely too much on rote memorization.
Well, given the existence of the TSA, the Patriot Act, and other things like it, that seems to be about right. People do seem to like punishing everyone for what others do, or sacrificing choice in exchange for negligible benefits.
Instead, he gave us a large brain and the ability to modify things, so we can build aeroplanes and perform medical procedures when necessary or prudent. Dumbass.
Aside from the fact that there's no evidence anyone gave us anything, I don't see why you'd call him a "dumbass." If someone did give us greater intelligence, then we're using it when we construct planes, but we still have no natural ability to fly. Circumcision is not necessary, either, so I hope that wasn't being implied.
You don't, for example, do repeated increments in your head to add, do you?
I'm actually faster at it than most people I know (when multiplying things I don't already know the result of). I have a few common ones memorized, but that is all.
Most people will look at 5*5 and recall 25 without going thru a tedious counting process.
The more you do it, the higher the chances that you'll memorize it are. You don't need to be forced to memorize it by a teacher; you will naturally memorize things that you repeat many times. It happens by itself for most people. I didn't make any specific effort to memorize the result of 5*5.
but a certain amount is crucial.
Actually, what you just mentioned is not in any way crucial.
That was their choice to make, and they can suffer the consequences. I don't have any problem with putting people who commit actual crimes in prison, and if they're drug addicts, rehabilitation, but that is all.
If you read very carefully all the way to the end of the sentence (that's the bit with the period at the end) you'll see that I said "impair judgement AND has strong physically addictive properties".
I'm going to have to disagree.
but sometimes we can significantly improve the health, safety and well-being of the many by narrowly curtailing the rights of a few.
Your idea of "safety" can go the way I hope organizations like the TSA will go for all I care.. I'll live in a less 'safe' environment if it means not curtailing the rights of a few in most circumstances.
but a chaotic free-for-all society is no society at all.
Cool, because not a single person here is suggesting they want one!
Drugs which severely impair judgement and have strong physically addictive properties should probably remain illegal.
I'm going to have to disagree. The people that use them can severely impair their own judgement if they want.
but the common good is served by keeping them illegal.
What common good? The one where people ignore the laws that restrict them and use the drugs anyway? The one where police bust into the wrong homes and murder families because of the drug war?
Considering that this is in the context of an article saying "hurr durr memorization is stupid and pointless,"
Even if the article claimed that, that doesn't mean everyone posting in it is.
We memorize, because it builds our vocabulary.
Which I think is okay, except if it's needless. Some of the time it has nothing to do with vocabulary, though. I memorize exactly what helps me personally, and nothing more than that.
They'll just be using a calculator (or the pictures on the McD's register) to find out the answer anyway. So there's no need to memorise, right?
It depends on what you mean by "memorize." They could always use their brains. Chances are, if they do that, they'll actually understand what's going on rather than be mindlessly memorizing the results of random mathematical operations.
And history. Who needs to know what the names of the USA presidents were off by heart? Right?
I believe you're right.
We could cut down school to about three weeks with a bit of effort...
I'd say it needs to be cut down, but I don't think it could be cut down by that much.
Multiplication tables are a short cut for repeated addition - there now you understand it.
I was speaking in general, and not just about multiplication tables.
A deeper understanding would tell you there is no other way to learn your multiplication tables other than by memory.
True for anything. I was referring to forcing people to sit there and memorize random facts in the long term. It's just not needed most of the time, and when it is, you'll memorize it just by using it.
No, you can use your brain for that. You don't actually need to memorize random results.
but it's better than NOT having a foundation at all.
That isn't saying much. Ideal conditions would be actually understanding the material. If all they've done is memorize multiplication tables and other such things, I highly doubt they'll be of any use as a programmer.
Really? I certainly don't expect to be recorded by the government everywhere I go! They love the argument that it's not a private space; it makes them feel justified in trying to spy on everything.
Remember you also suddenly lose all those much-loved copyleft licenses.
What much-loved copyleft licenses? I see licenses like the GPL to be better than some of the alternatives, but I by no means love it. I wouldn't mind seeing it all go.
Copyright as a concept, is good.
I disagree.
Bring protection down to say 20, 30 years from creation; give clear rules for fair use and personal use; and we're in a lot better situation where you actually have works entering the public domain
Although I disagree with copyright, I'd say this would be quite a large improvement over our current copyright laws, so I'd be in favor of it. Weaken it bit by bit.
And just because there is infringement is not a good reason to abolish copyrights.
Not what I said. I said that if it's truly important, we're going to be in trouble because of all the infringement. As for enforcing it, not only do I believe it's a waste of money (even if I believed it was harmful, I'd not see it as a big enough deal to actually try to enforce it) to do so, but also that it's completely futile. It's one of the easiest things to get away with (especially if you know what you're doing, and this person clearly didn't).
Slashdot Mirror
I believe the woman (the owner of the body) should be able to remove unwanted things from her body. This has nothing to do with abortion; in once instance, the baby is already born (and therefore abortion is not necessary), and in the other, the baby is still in the woman's body and therefore subject to whatever she wants to do with it. If the baby is independent, then it will probably eventually grow up to be an adult that's part of human society (and as I said, it's no longer in the woman's body, so abortion is no longer relevant) and therefore I believe its body is its own.
Abortion is irrelevant to circumcision.
I'm sure they are good at their jobs
Say no more, because that's all that matters.
A lot of people who get lung cancer later wish that they hadn't smoked, even if they don't have direct evidence that *their specific case of lung cancer* is directly related to smoking
Actually, you (or whatever posted that) said that you'd be angry at your parents if you contracted one of those things and found out they didn't get you a circumcision. I was simply curious to know how you'd know it was because you weren't circumcised. The studies often cited have been questioned time and time again, and plenty of circumcised people do get HIV and such.
How many bitch about it later in life?
Does it matter? Does the number of people who don't mind it matter in the least?
Except that when they're a baby, there is no guarantee that it will happen. You don't chop off body parts (or parts of them) as a prevention measure; you do it when you need to. Well, that's the ideal situation to me, anyway.
So they wouldn't mind if you were to chop off their penises? After all, anyone who cares about that specific body part must be a homosexual!
Abortion, to me, has to do with the right of the mother to get rid of the baby in her body (not necessarily kill it, but that can be allowed if it's the only option). In this case, the baby is already born, and yet they want to force it to undergo an unnecessary medical procedure. Now that it's out of her body, there is no reason for abortion, so it's not really the same.
You may as well argue that all pro-choice advocates shouldn't mind child abuse.
HIV or Herpes etc
Not practicing safe sex, are we? And in your specific case, how could you link such a thing to not having been circumcised?
not forcing it on anybody, god forbid
Thank goodness. I thought you were advocating something else, but it turns out that you're just opting to give people the choice once they turn 18 (or something such as that).
My 2 cents: let people do whatever they wish so long as it does not cause major harm to society.
Good to hear! I'll just beat my children, then. Not your child, not your business, and it doesn't cause major harm to society. I can punch you in the face, too. Society won't fall apart. It's not that big of a deal.
If it doesn't major harm, it doesn't matter!
then it's none of your business
Only a useful thing to say if someone asks a question they don't know the answer to. If they know something, they can criticize you and act against you if they so please. Saying "none of your business" is rather useless in almost every other case, but you don't have to listen to their criticisms, either.
2. There is no proof that most circumcised males suffer major harm from the ritual/operation.
Suffering "major harm" is not necessary.
Why do people think it's okay to release studies saying circumcision is harmful and should be banned but as soon as a counter-study comes out they cry foul?
I don't know. I'm sure the same is true of some individuals belonging to the [other side]. As for me, whether or not it's extremely harmful is inconsequential to my reasons for wanting it banned (although if it was found to be extremely harmful, that would add another reason).
As for letting the child decide: that's bullshit.
I think they argue for letting the 18 year old decide. In any case, staying in diapers, going to school, and whatever other analogies you can think of are quite different than forcing a child to undergo an unnecessary medical procedure with negligible benefits that is very likely irreversible.
Perhaps this is a surprise to you, but there are some things that parents legally cannot do to their children. Currently, forcing children (the parents, anyway) to undergo male circumcision is legal, but that may change. And if it does, obviously that's just another thing that parents won't be able to do.
You count to do multiplication?? Really?
I misunderstood you.
The procedures must be memorized.
I don't know why people keep trotting this out. No one (that I see) is saying that all memorization is bad. I claim that it's not always useful. For instance, it isn't really necessary to know the result of 16*9 off the top of your head.
They have to learn facts along with the method.
Only when extremely useful. Otherwise you waste their time and rely too much on rote memorization.
Well, given the existence of the TSA, the Patriot Act, and other things like it, that seems to be about right. People do seem to like punishing everyone for what others do, or sacrificing choice in exchange for negligible benefits.
Instead, he gave us a large brain and the ability to modify things, so we can build aeroplanes and perform medical procedures when necessary or prudent. Dumbass.
Aside from the fact that there's no evidence anyone gave us anything, I don't see why you'd call him a "dumbass." If someone did give us greater intelligence, then we're using it when we construct planes, but we still have no natural ability to fly. Circumcision is not necessary, either, so I hope that wasn't being implied.
You don't, for example, do repeated increments in your head to add, do you?
I'm actually faster at it than most people I know (when multiplying things I don't already know the result of). I have a few common ones memorized, but that is all.
Most people will look at 5*5 and recall 25 without going thru a tedious counting process.
The more you do it, the higher the chances that you'll memorize it are. You don't need to be forced to memorize it by a teacher; you will naturally memorize things that you repeat many times. It happens by itself for most people. I didn't make any specific effort to memorize the result of 5*5.
but a certain amount is crucial.
Actually, what you just mentioned is not in any way crucial.
I'm going to have to disagree.
That was their choice to make, and they can suffer the consequences. I don't have any problem with putting people who commit actual crimes in prison, and if they're drug addicts, rehabilitation, but that is all.
If you read very carefully all the way to the end of the sentence (that's the bit with the period at the end) you'll see that I said "impair judgement AND has strong physically addictive properties".
I'm going to have to disagree.
but sometimes we can significantly improve the health, safety and well-being of the many by narrowly curtailing the rights of a few.
Your idea of "safety" can go the way I hope organizations like the TSA will go for all I care.. I'll live in a less 'safe' environment if it means not curtailing the rights of a few in most circumstances.
but a chaotic free-for-all society is no society at all.
Cool, because not a single person here is suggesting they want one!
Drugs which severely impair judgement and have strong physically addictive properties should probably remain illegal.
I'm going to have to disagree. The people that use them can severely impair their own judgement if they want.
but the common good is served by keeping them illegal.
What common good? The one where people ignore the laws that restrict them and use the drugs anyway? The one where police bust into the wrong homes and murder families because of the drug war?
If they fail and harm themselves as a result
Huh? Then too bad for them.
But your comment affected me in some indirect way - with group freedom comes group responsibility.
It's all an illusion!
Considering that this is in the context of an article saying "hurr durr memorization is stupid and pointless,"
Even if the article claimed that, that doesn't mean everyone posting in it is.
We memorize, because it builds our vocabulary.
Which I think is okay, except if it's needless. Some of the time it has nothing to do with vocabulary, though. I memorize exactly what helps me personally, and nothing more than that.
Nobody's suggesting that being able to rattle off a list of 50 enzymes means you're qualified to begin manipulating the human genome
Well, I don't believe anyone is suggesting that all forms of memorization are bad, either.
They'll just be using a calculator (or the pictures on the McD's register) to find out the answer anyway. So there's no need to memorise, right?
It depends on what you mean by "memorize." They could always use their brains. Chances are, if they do that, they'll actually understand what's going on rather than be mindlessly memorizing the results of random mathematical operations.
And history. Who needs to know what the names of the USA presidents were off by heart? Right?
I believe you're right.
We could cut down school to about three weeks with a bit of effort...
I'd say it needs to be cut down, but I don't think it could be cut down by that much.
Multiplication tables are a short cut for repeated addition - there now you understand it.
I was speaking in general, and not just about multiplication tables.
A deeper understanding would tell you there is no other way to learn your multiplication tables other than by memory.
True for anything. I was referring to forcing people to sit there and memorize random facts in the long term. It's just not needed most of the time, and when it is, you'll memorize it just by using it.
"I can use a calculator to find 8*8 or 12*4!"
No, you can use your brain for that. You don't actually need to memorize random results.
but it's better than NOT having a foundation at all.
That isn't saying much. Ideal conditions would be actually understanding the material. If all they've done is memorize multiplication tables and other such things, I highly doubt they'll be of any use as a programmer.
Really? I certainly don't expect to be recorded by the government everywhere I go! They love the argument that it's not a private space; it makes them feel justified in trying to spy on everything.
Remember you also suddenly lose all those much-loved copyleft licenses.
What much-loved copyleft licenses? I see licenses like the GPL to be better than some of the alternatives, but I by no means love it. I wouldn't mind seeing it all go.
Copyright as a concept, is good.
I disagree.
Bring protection down to say 20, 30 years from creation; give clear rules for fair use and personal use; and we're in a lot better situation where you actually have works entering the public domain
Although I disagree with copyright, I'd say this would be quite a large improvement over our current copyright laws, so I'd be in favor of it. Weaken it bit by bit.
And just because there is infringement is not a good reason to abolish copyrights.
Not what I said. I said that if it's truly important, we're going to be in trouble because of all the infringement. As for enforcing it, not only do I believe it's a waste of money (even if I believed it was harmful, I'd not see it as a big enough deal to actually try to enforce it) to do so, but also that it's completely futile. It's one of the easiest things to get away with (especially if you know what you're doing, and this person clearly didn't).