MGM UK

[sadhatter]

That is incorrect:

Google definition:

Birth defect: a physical or biochemical abnormality that is present at birth and that may be inherited or the result of environmental influence.

Another definition from a medical site: Birth defect: Any defect present in a baby at birth, irrespective of whether the defect is caused by a genetic factor or by prenatal events that are not genetic.

http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=11042




I can't parse that into anything that makes sense, so...no?

So when I was in high school they explained how a definition that uses the word is a very poor definition. Kinda basic stuff, how hard did you have to cherry pick that one?

And if you don't understand how advocating for one thing does not mean you advocate for its exact opposite, then you are beyond both my and my high school English teachers help.

 

[Mycroft]

So when I was in high school they explained how a definition that uses the word is a very poor definition.

Then you clearly prefer the Google definition.

Kinda basic stuff, how hard did you have to cherry pick that one?

I literally picked the first two I found, but if you think they were cherry picked, then it should be super easy for you to find one that includes your "must be fixed" caviet, right?









Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk

 

[Belgian thought]

Then you clearly prefer the Google definition.



I literally picked the first two I found, but if you think they were cherry picked, then it should be super easy for you to find one that includes your "must be fixed" caviet, right?









Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk

This has def/sended into a farce.

 

[quadraginta]

You lost what the point of that illustration was too, didn't you?

He didn't lose it.

He's hiding from it.

 

[theprestige]

This has def/sended into a farce.

It's been a farce since at least the first Metro-Goldwyn-Meyer joke.

This signature is intended to irradiate people.

 

[3point14]

Rule of so strikes again! Straw-man argument is filled with straw and does not need a response.

You compared your right to circumcise your child with the right to remove a birth defect like a birth mark. When this is repeated back to you, you dismiss it.

You can't just dismiss statements because they start with 'so'. Or because you think you can put a 'so' at the beginning.

 

[Seismosaurus]

If this constitutes and “injury” or not is a fundamental part of our disagreement. I don’t think it does, and nobody here is supporting it beyond presenting hyperbole or just making an assertion.

Arguing that cutting off a piece of a person's body is not an injury is an absurdity. On that basis one could argue that there is no such thing as an injury. "Yes I punched him in the face and broke his nose. But can you prove that a broken nose is an injury? No? Then I did nothing wrong."

A claim supported only by your assertion.

No. A claim supported by the meaning of the word "injury". If you use a knife to cut somebody, that is an injury by definition. If I walked up to you with a knife and slashed you with it, and then tried to argue in court that I did nothing wrong because cutting you is not an injury, I'd be laughed out of the room.

Whenever an argument rests on redefining words to mean something else, it is the clearest sign possible that the argument is false.

I’m wrong because I’m wrong? That’s as good as any other argument I’ve seen.

If you don't like such arguments you shouldn't have made one.

And the reason this is so unconvincing to me is that I’ve been circumcised and do not consider myself to have been mutilated or even harmed.

I can't understand why you even think that is relevant. The definition of mutilation contains no reference to how the mutilated person feels about what was done to them.

What would you consider to be a mutilating act? Suppose a parent took a knife and carved up their baby's face, leaving it horribly scarred. Suppose they cut out the baby's eyes. Suppose they chopped all its fingers off. Would you say they had mutilated it?

But if the baby grew up to be an adult and said "I don't consider myself to have been mutilated, or even harmed", then suddenly none of that would count as mutilation any more?

I also strongly disagree that circumcision can rationally be compared to human sacrifice and child molestation.

Why not? I can see why you could argue that in cases of child sacrifice there is no adult to feel that it was an okay thing to do.

But take child molestation. If the adult victim says "I don't feel it was a problem. Hell, I don't even remember it happening," then by the standard you have put forward to excuse circumcision, child molestation would not count as a bad thing. So why would you be against it?

 

[Belz...]

Rule of so strikes again! Straw-man argument is filled with straw and does not need a response.

Wait a second. You offered birth defects as a parallel to foreskin removal and now that one makes the logical connection between the two based on your very words, it's a strawman?

Many laws are inconsistent with other laws, but that's not something I need to reconcile any more than you need to reconcile why we can't do female circumcision when we can do male circumcision.

I would think that inconsistent laws should be addressed, no?

 

[Mycroft]

You compared your right to circumcise your child with the right to remove a birth defect like a birth mark. When this is repeated back to you, you dismiss it.

Except you didn't repeat it back to me. You made a strawman and repeated that back to me.

You can't just dismiss statements because they start with 'so'. Or because you think you can put a 'so' at the beginning.

I will dismiss strawman arguments. Your statement, "so a foreskin is a defect that needs to be corrected?" is a strawman, and was properly dismissed as one.


Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk

 

[Darat]

Except you didn't repeat it back to me. You made a strawman and repeated that back to me.




I will dismiss strawman arguments. Your statement, "so a foreskin is a defect that needs to be corrected?" is a strawman, and was properly dismissed as one.


Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk

So a foreskin isn't a birth defect?

Why did you apparently bring up the idea of a birth defect being treated is some how related to you wanting male infants to undergo the equivalent of some forms of female genital mutilation?

 

[Mycroft]

Care to link these studies so I can dismiss them without consideration?

Sent from my SM-J327P using Tapatalk

How about if I link to a study you provided?

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision. In the case of circumcision, 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. It is legitimate for parents to take into account cultural, religious, and ethnic traditions, in addition to the medical factors, when making this decision. Analgesia is safe and effective in reducing the procedural pain associated with circumcision; therefore, if a decision for circumcision is made, procedural analgesia should be provided. If circumcision is performed in the newborn period, it should only be done on infants who are stable and healthy.

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/103/3/686

This is basically my position, informed by science and not hysterical hyperbole.

 

[3point14]

Except you didn't repeat it back to me. You made a strawman and repeated that back to me.

I will dismiss strawman arguments. Your statement, "so a foreskin is a defect that needs to be corrected?" is a strawman, and was properly dismissed as one.

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk

Let's go to the tape....

Is that a blanket statement of principle? If my infant daughter had a birthmark or birth defect, would you object to my deciding to have it surgically corrected on the basis that she cannot give consent?

So, in a discussion regarding MGM, you point out that you should be able to, without consent, have your daughter treated for this defect.

Why did you raise this if it's not relevant? Why did you even begin to talk about birth defects in this discussion if it's not relevant. I will note, you brought this up.

The response was this:

So a foreskin is a defect that needs to be corrected? If you have evidence of this I'd change my position.

Personally I thought that it was a normal functional part of the anatomy.

You keep comparing cosmetic surgery with nessecary surgery, I'm all about nessecary surgery, it's modifying children's bodies for no valid medical reason I'm against.

Seems reasonable. You (nobody else) have drawn a parallel here. you've asked why, if you can have defects fixed, you can't chop bits off.

Then this:

Rule of so strikes again! Straw-man argument is filled with straw and does not need a response.

What straw man? These are your terms everyone's repeating back at you. you raised the issue of birth defects. You asked why, if one can be fixed, the other can't be 'fixed' and you then decry such a parallel ans a strawman.

You know people can look back over the conversation, right?

 

[Mycroft]

He didn't lose it.

He's hiding from it.

Really?

The argument that preventive appendectomies is a bad idea therefore circumcisions are a bad idea is such a magic bullet argument that I must hide from it or see my world-view crushed?

That makes sense to you?

 

[Darat]

How about if I link to a study you provided?

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision. In the case of circumcision, 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. It is legitimate for parents to take into account cultural, religious, and ethnic traditions, in addition to the medical factors, when making this decision. Analgesia is safe and effective in reducing the procedural pain associated with circumcision; therefore, if a decision for circumcision is made, procedural analgesia should be provided. If circumcision is performed in the newborn period, it should only be done on infants who are stable and healthy.

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/103/3/686

This is basically my position, informed by science and not hysterical hyperbole.

And that extract like you gives no actual reasoning why we should take into account "...account cultural, religious, and ethnic traditions.." it simply asserts it.

It also of course does not explain why that "reason" is explicitly ruled out for those that wish to continue their "..... cultural, religious, and ethnic traditions.." and have their daughters undergo female circumcision.

ETA: Your reasons so far have included:

1) Did me no harm
2) A foreskin is smelly and dirty

 

[Darat]

Really?

The argument that preventive appendectomies is a bad idea therefore circumcisions are a bad idea is such a magic bullet argument that I must hide from it or see my world-view crushed?

That makes sense to you?

Now that is what is known as a strawman.

 

[fagin]

....
2) A foreskin is smelly and dirty

Mine is clean and sweet smelling, and I'm quite attached to it.

 

[Mycroft]

I would think that inconsistent laws should be addressed, no?

In general? Sure.

By me personally? Why?

 

[Mycroft]

Let's go to the tape....

Indeed.

So, in a discussion regarding MGM, you point out that you should be able to, without consent, have your daughter treated for this defect.

Why did you raise this if it's not relevant? Why did you even begin to talk about birth defects in this discussion if it's not relevant. I will note, you brought this up.

Why didn't you thread back one post further? to this:

I would still call it exactly what it is.

Call me crazy but elective surgery on those who cannot consent is something I'm against.

The point of comparison was on elective surgery on someone too young to give consent. It was not a statement that foreskins are birth defect.

You know people can look back over the conversation, right?

Right, so why didn't you go back far enough to put it in proper context?

 

[Belz...]

In general? Sure.

By me personally? Why?

To demonstrate some sort of consistency in your thinking. Do you think parents should be allowed to have the lesser forms of female genital mutulation performed?

Why didn't you thread back one post further?

How does that help you? You still brought up birth defects as parallels to circumcision.

 

[3point14]

Indeed.






Why didn't you thread back one post further? to this:



The point of comparison was on elective surgery on someone too young to give consent. It was not a statement that foreskins are birth defect.



Right, so why didn't you go back far enough to put it in proper context?

I don't think the context changes in the slightest that you brought up the analogy, you raised the subject of removing birth defects to support your right to subject your child to MGM - you drew that paralell and you object when someone points it out.


I don't think you know what a stawman argument is, if I'm honest.