The rising of a new antisemitism

Matthew

Legendary Member
Gold
Platinum Gold
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Posts
7,291
Media
0
Likes
1,503
Points
583
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
I have to say that I find the Golda Meir quote that people keep praising to be nauseating.

The implication is that Israelis love their children more than Palestinians do. Besides the fact that that's patently ridiculous, it smacks of the dehumanization campaign that Israelis have been waging against Palestinians for decades. You cannot believe her quote and truly be an advocate of human rights for all.

Of course I see that the Palestinians are not innocent or blameless in this ongoing war. I think Dong20 said it best, there's so much blame on both sides to go around. But not loving their children enough? Why don't you just tell me that story again about how the American Indians were savages who needed to be swallowed by U.S. manifest destiny. That's a really good story too.
 

dong20

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Posts
6,058
Media
0
Likes
28
Points
183
Location
The grey country
Sexuality
No Response
Dr Rock said:
your argument - "lots of people do it, lots of people have always done it, therefore it's okay" - is simply apologism for human cruelty. lots of people rape and murder, lots of people always have, but we don't let them get away with it; why should those who mutilate newborn kids be excused simply because they suffer from a dangerous psychosis (religion)?

Dr. Rock, we get that you think it's an abomination, that's your view and you are entitled to it. I also feel the same about the practice, when undertaken purely by way of right or tradition, but that is our view...that doesn't make it right however strongly we may feel it should.

I am not trying to dismiss your concerns, especially as I pretty much share them. But consider the bigger picture for a moment; alcohol and tobacco cause far more death, illness and misery to people the world over than Circumcision ever has or will.

It's not that I don't care, it's just I just find it a little harder to get as worked up over a single centuries old practice that results in for example, an estmated 200-300 annual deaths in the US as opposed to the 435,000 from Tobacco and 85,000 from Alcohol, and 365,00 from poor diet and lifestyle. On the plus side there were no reported deaths from Marijuana in 2000 so thank God for that.

Despite this, in a social context drinking and smoking to excess (death) are for the most part merely frowned upon and in much of the world they are still admired as alluring.

Of course the lack of informed choice by the circumcision 'victim' is a key factor and it's easier to relate to a single event such as circumcision, which from comments I have read on this site appears overall, not to be considered something akin to a war crime (thanks Snr R). And remember the victims of alcohol related crime had no choice in the matter either.

Yet, I don't see you raising a posse to burn down breweries and distilleries and lynch the purveyors of booze and cigarettes, so, no offense intended, your moral outrage seems very selective.

In the grand scheme of things, for the general betterment of humankind all I ask is which should we tackle first? That was really all I was trying to say, admittedly badly, sorry, in my earlier post.
 

D_Gunther Snotpole

Account Disabled
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Posts
13,632
Media
0
Likes
73
Points
193
Matthew said:
I have to say that I find the Golda Meir quote that people keep praising to be nauseating. The implication is that Israelis love their children more than Palestinians do. Besides the fact that that's patently ridiculous, it smacks of the dehumanization campaign that Israelis have been waging against Palestinians for decades. You cannot believe her quote and truly be an advocate of human rights for all.
Of course I see that the Palestinians are not innocent or blameless in this ongoing war. I think Dong20 said it best, there's so much blame on both sides to go around. But not loving their children enough? Why don't you just tell me that story again about how the American Indians were savages who needed to be swallowed by U.S. manifest destiny. That's a really good story too.

Of course, it’s nonsense to suggest that Palestinians love their children any less than Israelis do. But that quote, for me, speaks more to the strength of Palestinian hatred – which, understandable though it is, has helped no one, least of all the Palestinians.

It’s not fair to compare what’s happening in the Middle East to the decimation of the Indians. Israeli Jews would be driven into the sea, according to the propaganda boasts of many of the Muslim military groups. The president of Iran would annihilate Israel. These are common sentiments in the Muslim world.

You don’t find the Israelis, generally, replying with that depth of violent sentiment. They want peace, most of them, in a two-state solution.

American settlers weren’t fighting for their very lives. Their pillaging and killing was almost part of a sick sporting impulse. And of course, that sense of manifest destiny.

I agree with you, Matthew, that there’s enough blame to go around.

Let’s hope that Abu Mazen wins his referendum. The Palestinian people want an end to the problem and seem more realistic than most elements of their far-more-ideologically driven leadership.
 

DC_DEEP

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Posts
8,714
Media
0
Likes
93
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
I'm amazed that the propaganda machine works so well... I knew it worked, but... "the palestinians are terrorists, the israelis are peace-loving...' I'm just speechless.

And comparing circumcision to the alcohol and tobacco industries is so far beyond ludicrous, again, I'm speechless.

For any rational human being to be able to say "it's wrong, but it's gone on for so long, and statistically so few have died, well, it's ok...." it just, well, leaves me speechless.

I've managed to maintain a respectable level of hope and optimism (just in general) for the last 45 or so years, but this thread is going to undo my perfect record. I'm just speechless.
 

D_Gunther Snotpole

Account Disabled
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Posts
13,632
Media
0
Likes
73
Points
193
QUOTES FROM DC_DEEP:
I'm amazed that the propaganda machine works so well... I knew it worked, but... "the palestinians are terrorists, the israelis are peace-loving...' I'm just speechless.

Who said that?

And comparing circumcision to the alcohol and tobacco industries is so far beyond ludicrous, again, I'm speechless.

Dong compared them in terms of the amount of death caused. What's wrong with that? Seriously?

For any rational human being to be able to say "it's wrong, but it's gone on for so long, and statistically so few have died, well, it's ok...." it just, well, leaves me speechless.

Sometimes it's easy to find the balance between respecting cultural practices and protecting life, but not always. Those are two real values -- with, admittedly, the second having more obvious weight. But I can't see why some statistics about the implications of a particular practice on mortality would not be relevant.
Say only one person died as a result of circumcision ... would that be reason to entirely ban the practice? Some people would say yes; I don't think I would.
But if 50,000 died, I would say, "Ban this barbarity."
Can't we have opinions without attacking each other, DC_DEEP? I enjoy your posts, but this thread brings out incredible passion, too much, I personally feel.
 

dong20

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Posts
6,058
Media
0
Likes
28
Points
183
Location
The grey country
Sexuality
No Response
DC_DEEP said:
And comparing circumcision to the alcohol and tobacco industries is so far beyond ludicrous, again, I'm speechless.

Well actually, I compared the relative effects of circumcision with the relative effects of alcohol and tobacco in terms of resultant loss of life and the moral and criminal wrongs that result therefrom.

DC_DEEP said:
For any rational human being to be able to say "it's wrong, but it's gone on for so long, and statistically so few have died, well, it's ok...." it just, well, leaves me speechless.

I never assert I am rational, merely human.

Perhaps you could re-read what I said which was, I thought, that I believe ritualised or traditional circumcision is wrong yet is a minor cause of avoidable death and suffering on a global scale and that I consider other things a greater cause for concern. But tell me, please, where exactly did I say; "well, as it's been going on for ages, what the hell...keep snipping"?

I fail to see how you missed that. But, it seems, to you, it's OK to get drunk, get in an SUV and wipe out a bus queue with minimal consequences. Sometimes, DC I think you need to read what is said and ask for clarification before diving in and berating others views which are as valid as your own.

To me ritualised circumcision is not merely a matter or right or wrong (but, for the third time, it's wrong) but one of of perspective. Your attack on my comments suggests an unwillingness or inability on your part to consider this issue in a broader context.
 

smalldickboy

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2006
Posts
30
Media
0
Likes
49
Points
238
Location
london
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
I am neither Jewish nor Israeli - just before I ger accused of either!

Sorry for joining in this discussion so late I have been away.

With regards the State of Israel, it was set up after the Holocaust.

Israel is a piece of land approximately the size of Wales - it is miniscule and takes less than two hours to drive top to bottom and forty minutes side to side. Now place this small piece of land in the entire Middle East. I have absoultely no idea of the size of the Arab countires combined, but am sure it must be something like 50,000 times the size of Israel.

Why can the Jewish people not have one tiny piece of land like this in the entire world? the reason it is there is due to their need to flee Europe after WWII.

Secondly, there are very few Arab states who recognise the right of Israel to exist - and NONE recognise Jewish immigrants. Israel has Jews, Christians, Muslims and Hindus all living in one country. Anyone who says that Israel has no right to be there is insane - it is the only country in the middle east to accept immigrants of other religions.

Nobody can argue the above facts. They are not opinions they are facts. People who oppose Israel's existence (regardless of its behaviour in the past years) can only be anti-semitic. It is the ONLY Jewish state in the entire world, yet according to some of you it has no right to be there? A country that size in the whole of the middle east? So what if Israel wants to protect itself and build a fence - America are virtually doing the same as they as so shit scared of terrorists so I don't blame Israel one bit.

No man or woman on Earth can deny a country's right to exist - especially when we are talking of a country less than half the size of the smallest American state.

Anyone who does, has no right in a discussion such as this, as their opinion is dangerous and biggoted. I am not defending Israel's tactics in the last few years, but anyone who is not living in Israel/Gaza is not qualified to pass comment on one of the most complex political disagreements for decades. Especially when they are sitting in Starbucks or on their bed/living room sofa writing their messgaes thousands of miles away.
 

D_Gunther Snotpole

Account Disabled
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Posts
13,632
Media
0
Likes
73
Points
193
smalldickboy said:
Israel is a piece of land approximately the size of Wales - it is miniscule and takes less than two hours to drive top to bottom and forty minutes side to side. Now place this small piece of land in the entire Middle East. I have absoultely no idea of the size of the Arab countires combined, but am sure it must be something like 50,000 times the size of Israel.

I read somewhere that Israel constitutes 1/2 percent of the Middle East land mass. Problem with that is that "Middle East" is a bit ambiguous as a term.
 

dong20

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Posts
6,058
Media
0
Likes
28
Points
183
Location
The grey country
Sexuality
No Response
smalldickboy said:
No man or woman on Earth can deny a country's right to exist - especially when we are talking of a country less than half the size of the smallest American state.

Israel is also the worlds smallest Nuclear power, and what on earth does it's size have to do with anything.

I would argue that Israel, in having denied the right of Palestinians to have a nation of their own for decades, on land that was taken from them by 3rd parties without compensation to form said Israeli state is doing exactly that. The wall is a breach of international law and is more suggestive of xenophobia and posturing than a means to acheive peace and security. And yet that somehow makes me Anti-Semitic? Your view is a tad simplistic, and rather naive.

smalldickboy said:
Anyone who does, has no right in a discussion such as this, as their opinion is dangerous and biggoted. I am not defending Israel's tactics in the last few years, but anyone who is not living in Israel/Gaza is not qualified to pass comment on one of the most complex political disagreements for decades. Especially when they are sitting in Starbucks or on their bed/living room sofa writing their messgaes thousands of miles away.

No one is defending Palestinian terrorism either so far as I can see, merely saying that it's not a black and white situation.

I also ask, with all due respect, what qualifies you to dismiss the opinions of others on this topic? Your own post opens with:

"I am neither Jewish nor Israeli - just before I ger [sic] accused of either!"

As if being either is something to be 'accused of' :rolleyes: Your profile says London so by your opening statement as a non Israeli not living in the region you negate your own opinion. How comfortable is your London based sofa?
 

ETA123

Just Browsing
Joined
Jun 1, 2006
Posts
190
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
236
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
smalldickboy said:
Anyone who says that Israel has no right to be there is insane - it is the only country in the middle east to accept immigrants of other religions.

Nobody can argue the above facts. They are not opinions they are facts.

Ummm, making blanket statements as to someone's sanity because they have an opinion different from yours is NOT a statement of fact. If you wish to present a valid argument, it's best not to make such blanket unsubstantiated statements.

Please find me anyone here who said Israel has no right to exist. . . you won't find it. Pointing out the FACT that Israel has engaged in what amounts to Apartheid against Palestinians is not anti-semitic, it's a statement of fact.

Being against the policies of the Israeli government is not anti-semitic, because it is not against Jews, but against the policies of the government of a nation.
 

DC_DEEP

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Posts
8,714
Media
0
Likes
93
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
senor rubirosa said:
QUOTES FROM DC_DEEP:
I'm amazed that the propaganda machine works so well... I knew it worked, but... "the palestinians are terrorists, the israelis are peace-loving...' I'm just speechless.

Who said that?
Not a direct quote. I used quotation marks to set the statement off, grammatically, from the rest of the sentence. I'm surprised you so quickly took exception to that. It does, however express a distillation of several posts by more than one member. I specifically did not attach a name to it, for a reason.
And comparing circumcision to the alcohol and tobacco industries is so far beyond ludicrous, again, I'm speechless.
Dong compared them in terms of the amount of death caused. What's wrong with that? Seriously?
What is wrong with that is, I don't think the topic of this thread was the mortality rate of this particular practice, only the ethics.
For any rational human being to be able to say "it's wrong, but it's gone on for so long, and statistically so few have died, well, it's ok...." it just, well, leaves me speechless.
Sometimes it's easy to find the balance between respecting cultural practices and protecting life, but not always. Those are two real values -- with, admittedly, the second having more obvious weight. But I can't see why some statistics about the implications of a particular practice on mortality would not be relevant.
Again, mortality rate was not the original topic. There are also cultural traditions where it is common practice for a man to beat his wife. It has gone on for thousands of years, and in that context, the mortality rate is also low. That does not diminish the morality of the practice. Are you aware that some areas in the US still have, on the legal books, definitions of what type of sticks a man may use to beat his wife? Most of them something like, "No bigger around than the index finger." It's legal, it was acceptable, it was common, but for the most part, we have gotten past that because we know it is wrong. But the laws have not all been repealed.
Can't we have opinions without attacking each other, DC_DEEP? I enjoy your posts, but this thread brings out incredible passion, too much, I personally feel.
I'm sorry that you felt my post was a personal attack on you, but not much I can do about that. It was not. And I would prefer that you didn't feel that I have too much passion. But again, not much I can do to change that. I'm sorry that most people find a way to make just one exception when it comes to making permanent genital modifications on any infant. I've asked before, but I've never gotten an answer... If, instead of cutting off a piece of skin and sucking away the blood, it was the mohel's job to make a star of david tattoo on the child's face, because god said so, do you think the general population would find it as palatable? I'm sure the mortality rate for that would be even lower than for a bris.
 

DC_DEEP

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Posts
8,714
Media
0
Likes
93
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
dong20 said:
Well actually, I compared the relative effects of circumcision with the relative effects of alcohol and tobacco in terms of resultant loss of life and the moral and criminal wrongs that result therefrom.
The main topic of the OP, as I understand it, was ethics, not mortality rates. I was addressing the ethics issue... and as I told SR, I was not attacking you.

Perhaps you could re-read what I said which was, I thought, that I believe ritualised or traditional circumcision is wrong yet is a minor cause of avoidable death and suffering on a global scale and that I consider other things a greater cause for concern. But tell me, please, where exactly did I say; "well, as it's been going on for ages, what the hell...keep snipping"?
Hm, I don't know where you said that. I don't recall attributing any such thing to you. Help me out here.
I fail to see how you missed that. But, it seems, to you, it's OK to get drunk, get in an SUV and wipe out a bus queue with minimal consequences. Sometimes, DC I think you need to read what is said and ask for clarification before diving in and berating others views which are as valid as your own.
Now we are down to specifics. Where did I state, allude, or insinuate that drunk driving is acceptable? Please, be specific. I did not quote you. You quoted me. Money where the mouth is?
To me ritualised circumcision is not merely a matter or right or wrong (but, for the third time, it's wrong) but one of of perspective. Your attack on my comments suggests an unwillingness or inability on your part to consider this issue in a broader context.
Please clarify for me, are you saying that circumcising an innocent child who cannot give informed consent is wrong, but some people drive drunk and that's wronger, so we have to completely eliminate the alcohol industry before we can address the circumcision issue at all? Maybe I misread, but that's how it came across to me. It's a lesser evil, so let's just leave it on the back burner for now.
 

D_Gunther Snotpole

Account Disabled
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Posts
13,632
Media
0
Likes
73
Points
193
DC_DEEP said:
I'm sorry that you felt my post was a personal attack on you, but not much I can do about that. It was not. And I would prefer that you didn't feel that I have too much passion. But again, not much I can do to change that.

Actually, I didn't think it was an attack on me. But it just seemed that everyone was flailing out with too much force. I felt like everyone was shouting. (I like you, DC_DEEP.)


DC_DEEP said:
I'm sorry that most people find a way to make just one exception when it comes to making permanent genital modifications on any infant. I've asked before, but I've never gotten an answer... If, instead of cutting off a piece of skin and sucking away the blood, it was the mohel's job to make a star of david tattoo on the child's face, because god said so, do you think the general population would find it as palatable? I'm sure the mortality rate for that would be even lower than for a bris.

Not a bad point, I have to admit.
Especially when you consider that it is just an accident of birth that brings a newborn into the hands of parents who want a certain procedure done.
I know there's a point to be made there.
Frankly, I'm sure people would find the tattoo less palatable. But many would still say, We don't like this ourselves, but it is a cultural practice that we won't interfere with.
And the thing that makes this argument have at least some substance, is that those who are disfigured very often don't, later on, seem to mind. Cultural conditioning programs them, of course.
Many young girls, for example, want what we would call genital mutilation. I don't say all ... an increasing number complain, and I say bravo.
But when a cultural group says this is our practice, and most who undergo what we call mutilation don't offer complaints about the fait accompli, I would be hesitant to step in.
(I do, however, find female circumcision beyond the pale, certainly the more extreme forms ... and am glad that it is forbidden in Canada. So I'm inconsistent and my views are definitely a work in progress.:smile: )
 

dong20

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Posts
6,058
Media
0
Likes
28
Points
183
Location
The grey country
Sexuality
No Response
DC_DEEP said:
What is wrong with that is, I don't think the topic of this thread was the mortality rate of this particular practice, only the ethics.


Well the topic of this thread was Anti-Semitism. But like you I didn't think it excluded a discusion beyond that. I do believe that, ethically it is more wrong to 'turn a blind eye' to close to a million alcohol and tobacco related deaths above 200-300 deaths relating to an equally established wrong. Ethics are personal not absolute DC.

DC_DEEP said:
Again, mortality rate was not the original topic.


Well, DC neither was circumcison.

DC_DEEP said:
There are also cultural traditions where it is common practice for a man to beat his wife. It has gone on for thousands of years, and in that context, the mortality rate is also low. That does not diminish the morality of the practice. Are you aware that some areas in the US still have, on the legal books, definitions of what type of sticks a man may use to beat his wife? Most of them something like, "No bigger around than the index finger." It's legal, it was acceptable, it was common, but for the most part, we have gotten past that because we know it is wrong. But the laws have not all been repealed.

No, not in specfic US terms I didn't but similar examples can be found the world over. I could have added spousal abuse to my list but how many examples are needed? It's selective morality that I was trying to discuss. Because it's closer to home it's somehow more important? well, it isn't.

I have never been knowingly directly affected by alcohol induced crime but I still consider the damage alcohol causes outweighs that of circumcision, if being moral or ethical is a desire to value life and prevent unnecessary suffering it seems a logical conclusion, but it's mine and I don't need you to agree with it, I just ask that respect it as I respect yours even as I disagree with it.

Hypothetical moral/ethical question:

A genie grants you the ability to solve any 10 of the worlds greatest problems and evils as you see them; War, Child Poverty, torture, slavery....whatever. Can you honestly say that circumcision would be on that list?

My point is that, like Hate Crimes legislation we assign our own personal value to injustices and will tend to rate them to some degree as to how we feel about them personally. That's natural and human but what that may not always do is always reflect their importance as they may be in a big picture sense.

Is circumcision worse ethically than child poverty? of course not and though, to me it's less troubling to me ethically than alcohol induced wife beating or road deaths it is troubling.

FWIW as I said above, this thread was about Anti-Semitism and to me that is entirely about ethics. I can't help think we're arguing apples and pears...:biggrin1:
 

Dr Rock

Experimental Member
Joined
Jan 11, 2005
Posts
3,577
Media
0
Likes
23
Points
258
Location
who lives in the east 'neath the willow tree? Sex
Sexuality
Unsure
dong20 said:
But consider the bigger picture for a moment; alcohol and tobacco cause far more death, illness and misery to people the world over than Circumcision ever has or will.
an informed adult can choose whether or not to abuse tobacco and alcohol to the ultimate detriment of their health. a newborn baby has no choice in the matter of circumcision. sorry, but that comparison is really just ... retarded.

I just find it a little harder to get as worked up over a single centuries old practice that results in for example, an estmated 200-300 annual deaths in the US
how many kids die annually in the US as a consequence of sexual assault by child molesters? it's probably a LOT lower than 200-300, at least on the record. yet we don't consider it to be acceptable, or feel anything but revulsion for its perpetrators. in fact, we actively seek to prevent child molesters from getting near our kids in the first place. figures are irrelevant in any moral context - a crime is the SAME crime regardless of its effects after the fact.

smalldickboy said:
No man or woman on Earth can deny a country's right to exist
okay, i'm gonna make myself a new country. i'll annex a large area of, say, wales (to run with your comparison). i'll shoot anyone who tries to enter it and torture to death anyone inside it who pisses me off. the staple diet in my country will be human flesh, and everyone in it will be enslaved and forced to work 18-hour days in state-operated munitions factories to supply the international arms trade. i'll routinely bomb, terrorize and sabotage my neighboring states, just cos i feel like it. the automatic penalty for conviction of any crime within my country will be death-by-swarm-of-starving-rats. i'll sponsor international terrorist organizations merely because i hate the world and want to see it suffer. and i will be the sole undisputed ruler, forever.

luckily, since nobody has the right to deny my country's right to exist, nobody can possibly object :rolleyes:

moral of the story: moral absolutism doesn't work in the real world. you will never convince, for example, the jordanian or lebanese governments that they should just accept the existence of israel and find something else to do. you'll CERTAINLY never convince any palestinian terrorists to stop attacking israeli targets. sure, it'd be real nice if israel HAD worked out okay and solved more problems than it caused, but after 60 years it's pretty clear that ain't gonna happen. the israeli government are nationalistic scumbags because non-nationalistic scumbag governments can't survive in the middle east, where people are not just ready but eager to massacre each other over the slightest difference of opinion. all that the creation of a jewish state in an arab-dominated region has done has been to make life even more miserable for an even greater (and ever-increasing) number of people, just so that the US and UK governments can have their little power-base in the middle of the world's largest oil-producing region.
 

dong20

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Posts
6,058
Media
0
Likes
28
Points
183
Location
The grey country
Sexuality
No Response
Dr Rock said:
an informed adult can choose whether or not to abuse tobacco and alcohol to the ultimate detriment of their health. a newborn baby has no choice in the matter of circumcision. sorry, but that comparison is really just ... retarded.

Well, with respect then so is equating circumcision to Rape and Murder. But I believe I addressed your points earlier:

song20 said:
Of course the lack of informed choice by the circumcision 'victim' is a key factor and it's easier to relate to a single event such as circumcision, which from comments I have read on this site appears overall, not to be considered something akin to a war crime (thanks Snr R). And remember the victims of alcohol related crime had no choice in the matter either.

Note the bold, I appreciate the conflict but for example, a member here reported being hit and run recently, he had no say in that matter; the car hit him he didn't run into it. Rejecting an argument on the grounds that the perpetrator of the crime made an informed lifestyle choice to drive while drunk and hit and possibly kill one or more people somehow makes it less unethical than circumcision? I'd say that is a retarded argument.

I couldn't care less (in this context) about the effect on the drunks' health but I do care about the effect of his actions on his victims, there are more of them and the penalties are laughably low, and that bothers me, morally and ethically more than circumcision does, thats all.

I used the numbers merely as an illustration of perspective, the focus on them is clouding the issue.

Dr Rock said:
how many kids die annually in the US as a consequence of sexual assault by child molesters? it's probably a LOT lower than 200-300, at least on the record. yet we don't consider it to be acceptable, or feel anything but revulsion for its perpetrators. in fact, we actively seek to prevent child molesters from getting near our kids in the first place.

Why is it so so hard to get across that I do think it's wrong, hells teeth I said so three times already, now four times! But becuase I don't condemn it in the same extreme terms that you did that somehow means I support it...:confused:

Dr Rock said:
figures are irrelevant in any moral context - a crime is the SAME crime regardless of its effects after the fact.

But in general, circumcision isn't a crime, driving while drunk and killing someone is yet we seem to express less moral and ethical revulsion at '000s of annual vehicular homicides than circumcision! I respect your level of disgust it's just other things disgust me more. It's really that simple.

Dr Rock said:
....moral of the story: moral absolutism doesn't work in the real world....

I know this is not in the context you wrote it sorry, I but that's what I mean above, Morality is relative to ones personal sense of what is moral and thus by definition is subjective both in its degree and scope.

I probably hate the much the same things you do, just not necessarily all in the same order of priority. Again apples and pears.
 

chico8

Experimental Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2006
Posts
727
Media
0
Likes
21
Points
163
Location
Chico
Sexuality
No Response
dong20 said:
Is circumcision worse ethically than child poverty? of course not and though, to me it's less troubling to me ethically than alcohol induced wife beating or road deaths it is troubling.

That's an interesting point and I would say that the money spent on RIC in the US, about $200,000,000 a year, is very troubling when child poverty is so prevalent and medical costs skyrocketing every year.