That makes absolutely no sense given what he wrote, but otherwise it's a great post.
Circ thread obsessors
- Thread starter SilverTrain
- Start date
That makes absolutely no sense given what he wrote, but otherwise it's a great post.
Was I to expect you would? You missed the entire point of the thread. Or can you explain:
I didn't miss the point of the thread, it's here to mock those who are aggrieved at having part of their manhood removed unnecessarily. As if anyone who feels strongly about what's been done to them is some kind of embarassingly weak-minded fool who just needs to grow up, or whatever. Which is just plain shitty, really.
vindicator
Sexy Member
Guy-jin
Legendary Member
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2007
- Posts
- 3,836
- Media
- 3
- Likes
- 1,369
- Points
- 333
- Location
- San Jose (California, United States)
- Sexuality
- Asexual
- Gender
- Male
Gay-jin,
You edited your post after I replied. Here's the added parts:
Not really. I'm pre-med, studying bioethics, and want to be a pediatrician, so infant circumcision an issue I spent time researching. I tend to debate issues vigorously in proportion to my certainty, even if they aren't "big issues." I'd argue for gay marriage with the same fervor, if that weren't a one-sided debate around here. That doesn't make me "obsessed" with gay marriage...
I'm biased because I have a strong opinion? Man, that's kind of circular.
How can you possibly come to these conclusions from my posting history?
I almost never talk about my own circumcision preference. I doubt I've ever indicated how strong (or weak) it is. It's certainly not strong enough that it would cause me a significant life interruption if I had to be circumcised. I'd resent it, sure. Being moderately disappointed in not having something you prefer isn't a mental illness...it's a rational, normal human response. It's why autonomy is important to people.
Seriously, please do read a couple of my posts on this subject. Ask yourself if they sound like an obsessed crazy person, or just someone who takes ethical exception to neonatal circumcision. Or, even better, address my argument about RIC instead of me personally -- because even if I club baby seals for fun on the weekend, my arguments stands independently of my quality as a person. (For the record, I happen to think seals are awesome.)
Fair enough, but I think my last post succinctly pre-empted this response: If you're not obsessed with circumcision as a topic, this thread is not about you anyway.
So why are you here championing rational discourse in a topic you admit is not conducive to rational discourse?
That's the reason I jumped to a conclusion about you: You wouldn't be doing it if you didn't have some horse in the race. Specifically that you don't like other people thinking your own obsession with circumcision as a topic is "weird" or "insane".
However, I'll fully admit I did not read most of your posts on the topic. I merely looked at the threads you've a habit of posting in, and a large fraction of them do appear to be on the topic of circumcision.
To contrast it for you, I've posted a lot on LPSG (much more than you), but very rarely at all about circumcision. Many of my posts are on serious or important issues, and some are just in fun. But circumcision as a topic is something I am at best ambivalent towards in most cases, and I do find it to be unusual that someone like yourself would take such an interest were it not for some deep-seeded issue with the topic. But hey, maybe it's not and you're just interested for other reasons. If you insist, I'll give you that.
Regardless, though, it still doesn't make sense to be asking for civility in this particular thread. Are you delving into the other threads and calling out every single person who calls circumcision "mutilation"? Because you come into this one calling out people suggesting circumcision obsessers are "insane", and I see them as the same type of thing.
To be fair, he's been pretty clear that this topic isn't about circumcision. It's about people obsessed with circumcision as a topic.
So maybe you could call him circ-obsessed-person-obsessed.
Again, I point out that these folks obsessed with circumcision are often seen throwing the words "mutilated" and "deformed" around like it's no big deal. But this is the thread you choose to call offensive.
It must occur to you that those people are being at least as offensive in those threads, no? They're calling circumcised penises mutilated and deformed. That's offensive. And those threads far outnumber this thread, don't they?
Admittedly, I stopped viewing this section of the forum a long time ago, and I stopped viewing those threads. Problem solved. But then why are a few of you delving into this one to call out the OP but don't do the same in those other threads? You're here asking for civil discourse but do you do the same when it comes to people calling all circumcised penises "disfigured"? Somehow I doubt it.
No, it wasn't.
You see, ad hominem is something that people over the Internet have learned about over the past few years and now they think any time they see one person debating the effects of another person's point of view on their opinion (which you misconstrued as "attacking the person" as you put it) that it's an ad hominem argument and therefore invalid.
An ad hominem attack would have been saying something like, "Well, you believe that nobody should be circumcised, so your opinion is invalid."
That's different from questioning his objectivity, which is what I was doing. (In fact, I do not know Young Native's personal opinion on circumcision at all, so it would be hard to even go that route.)
Sorry, but people misusing "ad hominem" is a current pet peeve of mine. It's getting used far too often and far too incorrectly by a large portion of the Internet these days. :tongue:
Last edited:
the circ-fanboys are just as offensive Mr. Guy-jinn.
from intact men being filthy, disease spreading, gross... uncut peen has been called animal cock, and repulsive.
the first few responders to this thread make up the other side of circ-obsessed folks.
folks who act like an uncircumcised penis is the leading cause cancer, bad breath and shitty credit ratings.
if ya gonna mock.. mock both sides of the fence.
calling a circ'd peen mutilated is just as terrible as pretending that circumcision hasn't ever harmed someone. there are dudes with botched surgeries.. if ya peen didn't work, ya had discomfort or a very real deformity.. how would you feel if someone called you pathetic? told you to get a life and get over it?
i might be missing some serious man-type subtleties
cuz other than making a choice *which i wouldn't* for any future sons... the issue don't hit home like it does for dudes.
there does seem ample ugly from all sides.
from intact men being filthy, disease spreading, gross... uncut peen has been called animal cock, and repulsive.
the first few responders to this thread make up the other side of circ-obsessed folks.
folks who act like an uncircumcised penis is the leading cause cancer, bad breath and shitty credit ratings.
if ya gonna mock.. mock both sides of the fence.
calling a circ'd peen mutilated is just as terrible as pretending that circumcision hasn't ever harmed someone. there are dudes with botched surgeries.. if ya peen didn't work, ya had discomfort or a very real deformity.. how would you feel if someone called you pathetic? told you to get a life and get over it?
i might be missing some serious man-type subtleties
cuz other than making a choice *which i wouldn't* for any future sons... the issue don't hit home like it does for dudes. there does seem ample ugly from all sides.
Guy-jin
Legendary Member
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2007
- Posts
- 3,836
- Media
- 3
- Likes
- 1,369
- Points
- 333
- Location
- San Jose (California, United States)
- Sexuality
- Asexual
- Gender
- Male
And exactly how long should we hold their little hands? A year? Two years? A decade? A lifetime? Yes a lifetime that's it.
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2006
- Posts
- 1,424
- Media
- 6
- Likes
- 323
- Points
- 403
- Location
- South Pacific
- Verification
- View
- Sexuality
- 100% Gay, 0% Straight
- Gender
- Male
Here is what you said:
Discussion of the issue=0%, Attack on the previous speaker ("littered", "son", "obsessed", "some kind of mental issue")=100% It can be interesting to consider someone's motivation in making an argument, and useful to use that to decide how much weight to assign to what they say, but that is no substitute for looking at the actual case they make and answering that.
On this subject, nobody can be "objective". (But Young Native is one of the more nearly objective people here.) We just have to live with our various subjectivities.
Last edited:
D_Miranda_Wrights
Account Disabled
? I do think it can be conducive to rational discourse. Some people aren't interested in constructive discussion, or are too defensive for it, but that's true of every issue. I've seen plenty of people change their minds about infant circumcision.
I think you're misconstruing what I've been saying in this thread. My entire complaint about this thread is that it's using a "who cares?" pretense, while suggesting that individual preferences are invalid. I never said it was offensive. I never said I thought this thread was about people like me. I just objected because it's veiling an argument I disagree with under the guise of being purely apathetic satire.
Calling circumcision "mutilation" is douchey but it's not an ethical argument. If someone is using a label to dismiss someone else's preference (i.e., "it's unreasonable to want to be circumcised -- it's mutilation!") I'll criticize it. If it's just "circumcision is mutilation lololol," I usually won't. I'm interested in the ethical debate, not so much in policing people being douchey. Haters gonna hate. I'm only interested in the people actually willing to discuss rationally.
I post about the ethics, and not really circumcision itself. I don't know any more about the procedure than was required to analyze the cost-benefits, because circumcision is pretty boring medically. I don't find the ethical issues boring, though. They're not the biggest deal in the world, but "it's not a big deal" is not an ethical excuse. In fact, "it's not a big deal" actively irritates me as a defense of anything -- if something is wrong and avoidable, it shouldn't matter how wrong it is.
My motivation isn't really relevant to the quality of my arguments, but even if it were...it's kind of irritating to defend against having an ulterior motive that there's no evidence for. It's like if I was arguing for spaying and neutering pets, and the debate was constantly interrupted by people asking, "How can we know that you don't have a secret agenda to eliminate all cats and dogs from the face of the Earth?" Or, for a more realistic example: Would you spend time questioning someone's heterosexuality because they argued vehemently that gay marriage is obviously good?
Last edited:
Dave NoCal
Superior Member
That's not what this thread it about. You can take that comment to the zillion other threads on the subject
Dave NoCal
Superior Member
Meh...ignore the threads. Your life on LPSG is so much more vibrant and fulfilling when you do so. This coming from a former obsessor.
^ You were spot on with your diagnosis in an earlier iconic thread....
Body dysmorphic disorder
Body dysmorphic disorder is a type of chronic mental illness in which you can't stop thinking about a flaw with your appearance a flaw that is either minor or imagined.
Body dysmorphic disorder is a type of chronic mental illness in which you can't stop thinking about a flaw with your appearance a flaw that is either minor or imagined.
