Comparing circumcision with vaccination

[Aethian]

I consider the PROCEDURE a mutilation. I don't consider the men who have had it done to be mutilated. There can be a seperate between the two. So yes I CAN make a difference between the two and I find it very close minded to be told I can't. I don't believe the people to be taking the procedure as a optional procedure as mutilators. I just find the PROCEDURE itself to be a mutilation.

[Gravekeeper]

And just where would my infant son be (if I had one) that would expose him to HIV or other STD's that would get caught in the folds of his uncircumcised penis?

Obviously I was not saying that. If you bothered to read my post instead of walking away with just what you want to be mad about. As I said, the only risk factor to a child of 2 years or younger is an increased risk of UTI. Beyond that I was clearly talking about and referring to lifetime risk.

I consider the PROCEDURE a mutilation. I don't consider the men who have had it done to be mutilated. There can be a seperate between the two.

Honestly, simple logic dictates otherwise. If you consider the procedure a mutilation, there must be a mutilator to have caused that state. It did not magically occur without an instigating actor. Its not a matter of being "close minded".

But that aside, circumcision technically is by definition a form of mutilation because mutilation is a very broad term. But so are tattoos and piercings. So is using rings to stretch your neck. Or any other number of cosmetic shit we do to ourselves. The difference being that people don't throw out the m word about it. Because culturally speaking, we reserve the m word for its darker or more violent definitions. Not for nitpicking technicalities.

So unless someone ( such as yourself ) wants the shock/disgust value by linking it to the darker definitions, mutilation isn't typically used in a strictly technical sense. Especially not for day to day procedures that are largely cosmetic and involve no disfigurement, health risks or loss of physical function.

[TheHuckster]

I consider the PROCEDURE a mutilation. I don't consider the men who have had it done to be mutilated. There can be a seperate between the two. So yes I CAN make a difference between the two and I find it very close minded to be told I can't. I don't believe the people to be taking the procedure as a optional procedure as mutilators. I just find the PROCEDURE itself to be a mutilation.

Wow, pointing out a lapse in logic is being "closed minded" now?

If a procedure is a mutilation, then performing it is, by definition, mutilating the person, which by definition makes that person mutilated. It's not a question of open mindedness, but of fundamental logic and language.

By declaring the axiom that a procedure is mutilation, then unless you live in another space-time continuum, you must also declare the following:

a.) The person who had the procedure done was mutilated. (Mutilated being an adjective defined as one who had a mutilation performed on that person)

b.) The person or people who either performed the procedure or requested it must be a mutilator. (Mutilator being a noun defined as one who performs or orders mutilations)

You can't just redefine very well-defined terms, and when challenged on them, accuse the other person of being closed-minded. Otherwise, if I walk up to people, point at my socks, and call them pants, and when they disagree, I can call them closed-minded.

I will, however, agree with Gravekeeper that, under the strict definition of mutilate, this, among many other common procedures, could be considered a mutilation. However, it shouldn't be anywhere near the same list as other mutilations such as foot binding and female circumcision, which have not only visual effects, but very debilitating physical effects on the body, and don't have any health benefits whatsoever.

[Aethian]

Why can't you just accept the fact that I can separate those who chose to do a procedure and those that have the procedure done; and the procedure itself as two separate things?

[Sleepwalker]

"Cutting off someone's head is murder. You cut off your son's head, but you are not a murderer, and he is not dead."

Nope, doesn't work. Either you don't really think it is a mutilation, or you think that people are mutilating babies.

[Aethian]

Um...NO.

I FIND THE PROCEDURE TO BE MUTILATION. I do NOT JUDGE the PEOPLE who choose the procedure or have had the procedure done to be MUTILATORS. F'ing hell. Open your minds to the concept that someone can judge a procedure and not the people who have had it done.

[Gravekeeper]

Why can't you just accept the fact that I can separate those who chose to do a procedure and those that have the procedure done; and the procedure itself as two separate things?

You can separate them all you want but logic and the English language do not work the way. You can't declare something is a painting then deny it has a painter or that the canvas is painted. This is not rocket science.

[Gravekeeper]

I FIND THE PROCEDURE TO BE MUTILATION. I do NOT JUDGE the PEOPLE who choose the procedure or have had the procedure done to be MUTILATORS. F'ing hell. Open your minds to the concept that someone can judge a procedure and not the people who have had it done.

This has nothing to do with open mindedness. It is fine if you consider the procedure mutilation but do not wish to judge the people who perform it or receive it. However, that does not remove the onus of the label you have chosen to apply from the conversation. If it is a mutilation, the subject must be mutilated and the actor of the change of state must be a mutilator.

You cannot shield yourself from the consequences of your opinion by declaring everyone else close minded when they follow the trail of basic logic you yourself laid out.

[Aethian]

What I want to know is why you keep saying I am judging and calling people names when I have repetedly say that I am NOT calling them that. Why do you keep making me out to be the biggest bitch out there and making me evil because I find a procedure to be mutilation and one that myself will not have done.

Oh thats right it's easier to make me out to be a bitch in your minds because thats easier then just accepting my view on something.

[TheHuckster]

What I want to know is why you keep saying I am judging and calling people names when I have repetedly say that I am NOT calling them that.

You can keep saying you're not calling them that all you want, the fact is, under the fundamental laws of logic, the three things are inseparable. If [A] performs [B] on [C], then [A] is a [B]-er, and [C] was [B]-ed. There is no "separation" of these terms. In order for the first statement to be made, then the other two statements must also be made.

If I go out and hunt a deer for food, then I'm a hunter, and the deer is the hunted.

If I paint a picture, then I'm a painter, and the picture was painted.

If I climb a mountain, then I'm a climber, and the mountain was climbed.

I simply can't accept those being accurate statements but then, for some completely arbitrary reason deny that if I mutilate someone, then I'm a mutilator, and the person was mutilated.

And, speaking of calling people names and making statements nobody said, when the hell did I call you "the biggest bitch" and "evil"?! I simply stated that I take offense to being considered "mutilated" in the sense that I'm deformed. I don't have a problem with one electing against circumcision, or even believing the procedure inflicts unnecessary pain on the infant. If you don't want to circumcise yourself or your child, that's great.

Right now I'm simply calling you out on your contradiction of terms. In order for one to have had a mutilating procedure done on them, they must therefore be mutilated, because THAT'S THE DEFINITION OF THE TERM ACCORDING TO EVERY FUCKING ENGLISH DICTIONARY ON THE PLANET EARTH.

[Kheldarson]

What I want to know is why you keep saying I am judging and calling people names when I have repetedly say that I am NOT calling them that. Why do you keep making me out to be the biggest bitch out there and making me evil because I find a procedure to be mutilation and one that myself will not have done.

Oh thats right it's easier to make me out to be a bitch in your minds because thats easier then just accepting my view on something.

Because words have connotations and connections that cannot be ignored.

If you weren't looking to be judgemental in tone, then why not go with "I find the procedure distasteful and unnecessary"? That avoids loaded words that have inherently judgemental connections.

Or, hell, "the procedure's heinous", if you want to be more pointed.

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

My two cents, the entire debate is far too polemic at this point. I think it was low-hanging fruit given the movement to stop female genital mutilation which absolutely is just causing problems for a woman for no reason. It was a pretty easy logic leap to go from that to something western religions have been practicing for centuries because just like in the other case, the ethics behind deciding for a child can be somewhat warped.

But I tend to find it a bit more nuanced because, as Mayo paper points out, the risk of circumcision in terms of numbers vs. benefits aren't really that close together. The presence of the foreskin gives you a liklihood of 1 in 2 of having to get medical treatment for that part of the body over your life time. How bad or what that is may vary, but that's reality. Yet, even the most anti-circumcision would not make the claim the odds of a horrible side effect of circumcision is close to 50% and they'd probably feel REALLY shaky about claiming 25%. The numbers just aren't in the same ball park.

For me, I think as a parent you just make whatever decision seems best. Leaving it up to the child IS deciding for lack of circumcision. Circumcision is going to scar more and be more problematic when you're older. A minority of people might choose to go ahead and get it done, but I wouldn't like to think about the risk of infection to a full grown man that sweats in his crotch where he's recently been cut. Parents should just nut up to the fact they ARE making the decision and if cultural/medical reasons seem to be the priority go ahead and get it done. If the decision making autonomy of your child is paramount (even though the outcome of that will likely be over 95% to do nothing) or if you're concerned about the documented slight loss of sensation due to circumcision, abstain.

But the idea that the parent isn't deciding is specious.

[Nyoibo]

I'm separating the people from the procedure at it's not fair to those who chose to do something for me to judge them. I thought that was something that would be appreciated. It's a lot like the ones who use the rings to stretch their necks or the gauges to stretch their ear lobes out. I find those procedures to be part of a mutilation of the body but I don't call the people self mutilators. They wish to do something it's not right for me to judge them personally. I'm ONLY juding the PROCEDURES itselves.

That would be the arguement of the religious of "Hate the sin, love the sinner" it's easy for someone to say something like that, but you are making a judgement on that person, wether you believe you are or not, you say a procedure I had done to me is mutilation, therefore I am mutilated, you may be able to convince yourself that that's not what you mean but then you're just being close minded as to how your views and the expresion there of effect others.

[Aethian]

Hey you guys have already said that you believe me to be calling you mutilated, mutilators and everything else. Even when i have repeatidly said that I don't. It was the choice of yourselves and your parents...not mine. So thank you for constantly judging me and making me feel as if my view alone for myself or any male children I might have to be worthless. Because hey I can't call something what I see it as because oh noes other people will take offense to it and put words in my mouth to make themselves feel better.

Again I am SEPARATING the two as I have been. Please PLEASE try to look at it as a separation before you once mopre cast me into the depths of your hatred. Just because you find that doesn't fit in your logic...it fits in MINE.

[Kheldarson]

Hey you guys have already said that you believe me to be calling you mutilated, mutilators and everything else. Even when i have repeatidly said that I don't. It was the choice of yourselves and your parents...not mine. So thank you for constantly judging me and making me feel as if my view alone for myself or any male children I might have to be worthless. Because hey I can't call something what I see it as because oh noes other people will take offense to it and put words in my mouth to make themselves feel better.

Again I am SEPARATING the two as I have been. Please PLEASE try to look at it as a separation before you once mopre cast me into the depths of your hatred. Just because you find that doesn't fit in your logic...it fits in MINE.

Dear Lord.

One) Nobody has said that your decision to not circumcise or your reasons for doing so are wrong.

Two) We're trying to tell you that, despite what you say, the words you choose to use do have a judgemental tone because of their connotations and associations. Mutilate has, even without the associated causation and affected words, a very strong negative connotation. Therefore, if you choose to use it, you have a desire to shock and horrify because that's the connotation.

Three) This is a debate site. We're saying your logic is faulty to our understanding, so please explain yours. All you've rebutted with has been "well, it works for me". That's not logic, nor debate.