Post Reply
Page 53 of 136  •  Prev 1 ... 51 52 53 54 55 ... 136 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Should Infants Be Ritually Mutilated?
2 years ago  ::  Aug 11, 2012 - 4:40PM #521
Ekdikos
Posts: 25

Aug 10, 2012 -- 3:34PM, Erey wrote:

 


Boring, you should be grateful because I am pretty sure I am the only person who actually responded to your posts.  Think about that while you are busy making what you consider brilliant points. 




Using the term "responded" loosely, you do have a point... Not too many takers. Perhaps because I am new, not fanatic nor insulting enough?


On the other hand, my minor contributions to this mess, ignored or not, brilliant or not, are based in simple logic, with simple and limited implications. And no, nobody has responded to any of it, not even you. Except a very few times where there was either simple agreement or a distortion of what I wrote to launch into someone else's agenda, there has been no direct reference, support or contradiction, of anything I've put up here.


However, I do find this entire thread quite entertaining and intriguing -even you, Erey. I usually don't have much interest in "places" or processes like this, but every once in a while it is a great distraction from routine.


I do appreciate you taking the time to at least hit the quote button, spew a couple of random insults, then hit the submit post button... But if you are hoping for much reaction, well, I don't have nearly enough vested in either my internet persona or this discussion to care -again, just a curiosity to break my schedule up. Nothing on this board is going to have measurable, far-reaching consequences -just another imperceptible ripple in the interference pattern that is the growth and death of human ideas and ideals.


Having read all these posts (starting to fall behind a bit), it isn't lost on me, however, that my few posts are mirrored pages later -not exact, to be sure, but there nonetheless. Either I'm ahead of the curve and genuinely being ignored on the whole, or I have had some small effect on this thread, as you have had some small effect on this thread. Personally, I do not care either way, as my main concern is for my own thoughts and considerations, the presentation of logic and applicable metaphor, and any genuine facts which may be gleaned... Baseless opinions, insults, idiocy, and any of the like are all completely useless to me, including those offered directly to me, except for morbid entertainment.


mindis1, though taking a much more extreme position in the subject (or argument, if you will) than I would, at least had the idea straight, even if he is just a little too willowy for his own good (though, most good debaters are, at least in academic settings). Assertions need to be backed up by valid argument, which need to be supported by agreeable presuppositions, assumptions, and/or facts. The latter may be stated formally or tacitly understood (which is more often the case when utilizing metaphor and analogy), but anything which doesn't follow this form is either pure opinion (no matter how it is stated) or simple pathos (appeal to emotion). Not that there is anything wrong with pathos after logos has brought a conclusion about (or the exceedingly rare cases where emotion helps you see an issue more clearly), but it shouldn't be the basis of argument. Also, appeal to ethos (authority) should only be in the most trusted authority in the matter and only when there is no other option. In issues like these, for many, the balancing act between the various forms of argument (both valid and invalid) can be difficult. Also, ad hominem and straw man are not valid forms of argument, if you didn't know, they are called fallacies -they have absolutely no bearing on the conversation except to ensnare those who don't know better.


And if I had to make a basic presupposition, it would have nothing really to do with the argument at hand: that circumcision actually draws on too many and too varied other, more basic, principles and considerations to coherently discuss with the level of veracity being attempted.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Aug 11, 2012 - 5:17PM #522
christine3
Posts: 7,410

Aug 11, 2012 -- 4:40PM, Ekdikos wrote:


Boring, you should be grateful because I am pretty sure I am the only person who actually responded to your posts.  Think about that while you are busy making what you consider brilliant points. 




Wasn't that comment by Erey directed to Browbeaten?  Well, I should say this...I've been at Beliefnet for a few years and find that nobody responds my posts unless they disagree vehemently.  If people agree with you, they won't respond with an insult.  If you don't hear from them they generally are in agreement.  You'll hardly every get a "good post!" unless they are swept away with emotion.  That's about it.  From what I can tell, people only respond to me when either vehemently disagreeing or attacking.  That said, I "messaged you" several days ago and thanked you for your posts, gave compliments, and "friended" you.  Didn't hear a thing back though, so thought you don't care one way or another.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Aug 11, 2012 - 7:17PM #523
Erey
Posts: 18,946

No,not Browbeaten.  Eikidos, your posts are way too long and wordy - I can't make it very far through your posts.  Just a suggestion.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Aug 11, 2012 - 7:21PM #524
Erey
Posts: 18,946

Aug 11, 2012 -- 10:07AM, christine3 wrote:


Aug 11, 2012 -- 9:38AM, Erey wrote:


 


Comming from a Native American background then you should know many Native Americans practised male circumcision.  The main ones being Azetecs and Mayans.  But there were also other tribes scattered throughout what we know as continental US who practised it also. 


 


I wonder why they did this seeing as they all settled near a river or what have you?  Seeing as how they could just magicaly get clean by jumping in the water?


 



 




Circumcision in the Americas among indigenous tribes is entirely false.  If it happened in any small incidence in South America, it was due to conversion by Jewish Spaniards as the indigenous had become unfortunate captives.  Modern scholars have argued against circumcision being practiced among the indigenous Americas.




 


That is not what I read and from very reliable sources.   I don't claim to be an expert on indigenous tribes, but I do read material WRITTEN BY experts.  And seeing as how there are so many different indigenous cultures no body with any education would ever say "oh the indigenous Americans never did that".  Because there were so many different practises amoung them that most likely some group indeed did do that. 


Oh and FYI - Mexico is in North America which makes Aztecs and Mayans North American. 




 

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Aug 11, 2012 - 8:41PM #525
christine3
Posts: 7,410

Aug 11, 2012 -- 7:21PM, Erey wrote:


That is not what I read and from very reliable sources.  


>>>They are not reliable sources.  If you knew about Native American cultures you wouldn't think many indigenous practiced circumcision.


I don't claim to be an expert on indigenous tribes,


>>> :) . 


but I do read material WRITTEN BY experts.


>>>Cite your reference material so that it can be scrutinized if you are sure of your references.


And seeing as how there are so many different indigenous cultures no body with any education would ever say "oh the indigenous Americans never did that". 


>>>I gave you a reliable source (Geographical Map).


Because there were so many different practises amoung them that most likely some group indeed did do that. 


>>>Again, talking through your hat.  What you've written about "many" [you did say "many"] Native Americans practicing circumcision, is your empiricist colonial idea about Indians.  You think you know something by doing a quick check on the internet.  Nooooo.   


Oh and FYI - Mexico is in North America which makes Aztecs and Mayans North American. 


>>>Technically they are Central (Meso) American.



 

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Aug 11, 2012 - 9:02PM #526
Fodaoson
Posts: 11,158

Erey posted [“Boring, you should be grateful because I am pretty sure I am the only person who actually responded to your posts.  Think about that while you are busy making what you consider brilliant points.”]


The reasons for non-responses Vary; some because  a similar  statement has been responded to , agree or non- agreement ,  and some because the poster is blocked by another.


Some posters offer nothing of substance or relevant substance to a conversation.. Substance and relevant substance can be counter to   the thought and beliefs of  someone but it is enlightening or thought provoking or is a good expression of a thought.    

“I seldom make the mistake of arguing with people for whose opinions I have no respect.” Edward Gibbon
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Aug 11, 2012 - 10:07PM #527
Ekdikos
Posts: 25

Aug 11, 2012 -- 7:17PM, Erey wrote:


No,not Browbeaten.  Eikidos, your posts are way too long and wordy - I can't make it very far through your posts.  Just a suggestion.




Heh, yeah, I have a problem with that. Either I bite off more than I can chew, or I get too caught up in the details. When I do both, it gets really bad. In normal "irl" communication, I rely on a lot of things which don't translate well to the written word, compressing concepts with body language, tone, etc., and using very recursive pathing through my topic and related subjects, merging and twisting them back at multiple points... It is hard for me to find dividing lines between one concept and another. Perhaps just a curse of right-brain thinking :/


However, while I wouldn't call myself brilliant by any stretch of the imagination, if I didn't think what I had to say wasn't at least worth considering, I wouldn't spend the effort organizing, shoe-horning into written word, and typing it out. Course, I guess that is more or less anyone who has something to say... And also, it helps me organize my thoughts through language... And I think I'm coming to see that newborns aren't treated carefully enough at all (like you said, right?), even aside from circumcision (though, the way it is done, I think I would now include that as well)... Certainly, some things could be put off till a bit later, done with a bit more patience, and perhaps a bit more compassion. The idea that it is best to just get it all over with at the same time doesn't seem to add up with research data -stress hormones are like poison, the body can metabolize up to a certain, variable amount with no effects, but surpass that amount, and irreparable harm can result. Why even take the chances with our children? To me, it seems like you and I actually line up closely in how we see things.


Thank you for the suggestion about length, and believe it or not, I do try. (see me trying to choke off this last post? ha!)

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Aug 13, 2012 - 12:09AM #528
Erey
Posts: 18,946

Aug 11, 2012 -- 8:41PM, christine3 wrote:


Aug 11, 2012 -- 7:21PM, Erey wrote:


That is not what I read and from very reliable sources.  


>>>They are not reliable sources.  If you knew about Native American cultures you wouldn't think many indigenous practiced circumcision.


I don't claim to be an expert on indigenous tribes,


>>> :) . 


but I do read material WRITTEN BY experts.


>>>Cite your reference material so that it can be scrutinized if you are sure of your references.


And seeing as how there are so many different indigenous cultures no body with any education would ever say "oh the indigenous Americans never did that". 


>>>I gave you a reliable source (Geographical Map).


Because there were so many different practises amoung them that most likely some group indeed did do that. 


>>>Again, talking through your hat.  What you've written about "many" [you did say "many"] Native Americans practicing circumcision, is your empiricist colonial idea about Indians.  You think you know something by doing a quick check on the internet.  Nooooo.   


Oh and FYI - Mexico is in North America which makes Aztecs and Mayans North American. 


>>>Technically they are Central (Meso) American.



 




The Mayans were in souther North American into Centeral America.   The Azetcs were very much in southern North America.  And Yes, they matter as much as you seem to want to dismiss them

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Aug 13, 2012 - 12:10AM #529
Erey
Posts: 18,946

Aug 11, 2012 -- 10:07PM, Ekdikos wrote:


Aug 11, 2012 -- 7:17PM, Erey wrote:


No,not Browbeaten.  Eikidos, your posts are way too long and wordy - I can't make it very far through your posts.  Just a suggestion.




Heh, yeah, I have a problem with that. Either I bite off more than I can chew, or I get too caught up in the details. When I do both, it gets really bad. In normal "irl" communication, I rely on a lot of things which don't translate well to the written word, compressing concepts with body language, tone, etc., and using very recursive pathing through my topic and related subjects, merging and twisting them back at multiple points... It is hard for me to find dividing lines between one concept and another. Perhaps just a curse of right-brain thinking :/


However, while I wouldn't call myself brilliant by any stretch of the imagination, if I didn't think what I had to say wasn't at least worth considering, I wouldn't spend the effort organizing, shoe-horning into written word, and typing it out. Course, I guess that is more or less anyone who has something to say... And also, it helps me organize my thoughts through language... And I think I'm coming to see that newborns aren't treated carefully enough at all (like you said, right?), even aside from circumcision (though, the way it is done, I think I would now include that as well)... Certainly, some things could be put off till a bit later, done with a bit more patience, and perhaps a bit more compassion. The idea that it is best to just get it all over with at the same time doesn't seem to add up with research data -stress hormones are like poison, the body can metabolize up to a certain, variable amount with no effects, but surpass that amount, and irreparable harm can result. Why even take the chances with our children? To me, it seems like you and I actually line up closely in how we see things.


Thank you for the suggestion about length, and believe it or not, I do try. (see me trying to choke off this last post? ha!)





no, i don't think circumcision is best put off untill latter.  That does not make any sense to me. 

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Aug 13, 2012 - 2:30AM #530
CharikIeia
Posts: 8,301

Aug 10, 2012 -- 3:45PM, Erey wrote:


... boys I have known do get infections, painful, red, crying and screaming infections.  Don't know why they had these issues and you guys did not, call it lucky!  Don't know why a couple of middle aged men I have known have had problems with infections latter in life and so circumcision was perscribed and the infections stopped.



It is easy to read up on why people get infections. It also is easy to take appropriate precautions and avoid these infections by following simple hygiene routines. It's as simple as washing one's hands. How did you teach your sons to avoid meatitis, which seems to occur more frequently among circumcised boys?


Cutting off the infected body part, even if done pre-emptively, is generally not among the recommended precautionary measures. It is not standard medical practice to combat infections in the 21st century.

tl;dr
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 53 of 136  •  Prev 1 ... 51 52 53 54 55 ... 136 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 2 guests
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook