Nordic countries may finally ban circumcision.

[jdp]

No thanks, too thread drifty....

How is it 'too thread drifty'? I asked you:

If the relevant medical organizations such as the KNGM comes to the objective conclusion that a procedure is more harmful than not in the routine case and that a policy of deterrence with the eventual goal of prohibition is important for society, why should the legislature not work to implement that policy?

to which you claimed that I was "begging the question." I replied, "I have to say that I don't see how. What have I assumed that I need to prove?"

So exactly how is it thread drifty to support a claim of 'begging the question' to a question that I asked you which is directly related to the topic of the thread?

Now if you still do not want to address why asking,

If the relevant medical organizations such as the KNGM comes to the objective conclusion that a procedure is more harmful than not in the routine case and that a policy of deterrence with the eventual goal of prohibition is important for society, why should the legislature not work to implement that policy?

is "begging the question" then perhaps you would move along to answering the question directly which would also alleviate any and all concern of ‘thread drift’. We can break it up in to two parts if it helps:

1. Did the relevant medical association and child welfare organizations make a determination and come to an objective conclusion that circumcision is more harmful than not in the routine case and determined that a policy of deterrence is warranted?

2. If so, then is it reasonable for the legislature to work toward implementing that policy?

 

[Darat]

That is not what we are talking about. We are talking about people, the vast majority of which are not circumcised men, referring to circumcised men as having "mutilated genitals" despite explanations that is not helping.
And they are damned if they are going to stop because.... hell if I know.

Because we do have evidence that what we call something can alter the perceptions of it. It is hardly rocket science.

So to a completely relevant analogy: for many years the genital mutilation of women was called "female circumcision" - because the vast majority of such procedures are similar to a male circumcision (i.e. removing a small amount of tissue). Campaigners against this non-consensual injury started to call it what it was i.e. female genital mutilation and that helped people understand why it was a bad thing. These days many countries have adopted legislation that makes female "circumcision" illegal regardless of any parent or Dr's view of it - countries such as the USA.

 

[The Big Dog]

How is it 'too thread drifty'? I asked you:

I have said many times that I don't think its makes sense to let this thread drift too far from the issue of male circumcision.

Thanks though for asking, again.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

I have said many times that I don't think its makes sense to let this thread drift too far from the issue of male circumcision.

Thanks though for asking, again.

The questions jdp is asking are directly on the topic of circumcision - even more on topic than most of the thread since they concern the issue of possible legislation in Nordic countries - which is what the OP is about...

 

[The Big Dog]

The questions jdp is asking are directly on the topic of circumcision - even more on topic than most of the thread since they concern the issue of possible legislation in Nordic countries - which is what the OP is about...

Well then, lets agree to disagree.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I have said many times that I don't think its makes sense to let this thread drift too far from the issue of male circumcision.

Thanks though for asking, again.

Male circumcision in general is thread drift away from the topic of this thread, which is exactly what jdp's question is about. The question you're refusing to address is far more on-topic than anything you've said or replied to in the last 10 pages or so.

You either need to come up with a new excuse, or make a choice between defending your incorrect use of the term "begging the question" and answering the question put to you.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Well then, lets agree to disagree.

Disagree about what? That the thread is about the potential banning of circumcision in Nordic countries? Read the title of the thread.

It's okay to admit that you're wrong, you know.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

Well then, lets agree to disagree.

I'm sorry, but there is no conceivable way you could think jdp's question about how scandinavian governments should respond to recommendations by the relevant medical bodies is off-topic. It's what the OP is about!

If you just don't want to answer the question, that's fine, but pretending it is because it is off-topic is just barmy.

 

[The Big Dog]

Male circumcision in general is thread drift away from the topic of this thread, which is exactly what jdp's question is about. The question you're refusing to address is far more on-topic than anything you've said or replied to in the last 10 pages or so.

You either need to come up with a new excuse, or make a choice between defending your incorrect use of the term "begging the question" and answering the question put to you.

Sigh.

ahem: "By the way, this thread is not about FGM, of course, particularly as the medical, physical, and (presumably) religious considerations differ wildly. You might want to take that up with darat, he posted pro-FGM article(s) earlier."

 

[The Big Dog]

I'm sorry, but there is no conceivable way you could think jdp's question about how scandinavian governments should respond to recommendations by the relevant medical bodies is off-topic. It's what the OP is about!

If you just don't want to answer the question, that's fine, but pretending it is because it is off-topic is just barmy.

Sigh.

ahem: "By the way, this thread is not about FGM, of course, particularly as the medical, physical, and (presumably) religious considerations differ wildly. You might want to take that up with darat, he posted pro-FGM article(s) earlier."

Please see above

 

[Professor Yaffle]

??? He's not talking about FGM in that quote. He mentions FGM as a point of comparison, but the question is about male circumcision.

 

[rustypouch]

Sigh.

ahem: "By the way, this thread is not about FGM, of course, particularly as the medical, physical, and (presumably) religious considerations differ wildly. You might want to take that up with darat, he posted pro-FGM article(s) earlier."

Yes, bold type makes you seem calm and rational, and really gets your point across.

But you're right. The thread's about male genital mutilation.

 

[332nd]

Please see above

... So you don't want to answer jdp's question about male circumcision, because it drifts too far from the topic of male circumcision, because of a mention of female circumcision, that wasn't part of the question?

 

[The Big Dog]

??? He's not talking about FGM in that quote. He mentions FGM as a point of comparison, but the question is about male circumcision.

At this point I assume that we are not talking about same posts, because I quoted my response to his post.

I have provided what I consider to be my response, and at this stage the insistence that I jump through further hoops to discuss what I consider to be a poor analogy is bordering on rudeness.

 

[jdp]

At this point I assume that we are not talking about same posts, because I quoted my response to his post.

I have provided what I consider to be my response, and at this stage the insistence that I jump through further hoops to discuss what I consider to be a poor analogy is bordering on rudeness.

Which part of my restated two part question contains a 'poor analogy'? I don't see any analogy in the question or any reference to FGM. Here it is in case you forgot it:

1. Did the relevant medical association and child welfare organizations make a determination and come to an objective conclusion that circumcision is more harmful than not in the routine case and determined that a policy of deterrence is warranted?

2. If so, then is it reasonable for the legislature to work toward implementing that policy?

I don't see how anyone could reasonably assert that these two questions constitute thread drift, they are right on topic.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Sigh.

ahem: "By the way, this thread is not about FGM, of course, particularly as the medical, physical, and (presumably) religious considerations differ wildly. You might want to take that up with darat, he posted pro-FGM article(s) earlier."

That's nice. Not at all relevant to what you've been asked, but I hope you feel better now you've got that off your chest.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

At this point I assume that we are not talking about same posts, because I quoted my response to his post.

I have provided what I consider to be my response, and at this stage the insistence that I jump through further hoops to discuss what I consider to be a poor analogy is bordering on rudeness.

Yes, you do like to run away when asked a question you can't answer, don't you?

 

[The Big Dog]

Which part of my restated two part question contains a 'poor analogy'? I don't see any analogy in the question or any reference to FGM. Here it is in case you forgot it:

1. Did the relevant medical association and child welfare organizations make a determination and come to an objective conclusion that circumcision is more harmful than not in the routine case and determined that a policy of deterrence is warranted?

2. If so, then is it reasonable for the legislature to work toward implementing that policy?

I don't see how anyone could reasonably assert that these two questions constitute thread drift, they are right on topic.

Christ.

1. No.
2. No.

 

[jdp]

Christ.

Which part of my restated two part question contains a 'poor analogy'? I don't see any analogy in the question or any reference to FGM. Here it is in case you forgot it:

1. Did the relevant medical association and child welfare organizations make a determination and come to an objective conclusion that circumcision is more harmful than not in the routine case and determined that a policy of deterrence is warranted?

2. If so, then is it reasonable for the legislature to work toward implementing that policy?

I don't see how anyone could reasonably assert that these two questions constitute thread drift, they are right on topic.

1. No.
2. No.

Thank you. Now we can move on. With respect to the first question, did you not read the first post?

It would seem to me that the answer is in fact, yes.

Note: Does someone have a link to the KNGM position paper, that would proabably be useful in clearing up this first point.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

With respect to the first question, did you not read the first post?

Of course not. To have done so would be off-topic.