Circumcision

geez your both getting pretty upset, i know your penis is important to you but cant you have pride without putting someone down. Circumcised people are not mutilated, and uncircumcised people are not dirty. Some people who are cut should have been given a chioce, and some who arent should have been taught how to wash it right. Its not all black and white, ya'll just need to calm down a bit

 

I know you guys are cool enough to have a civilized conversation about this. Don't let me down! It's my first week....

 

I'm the moderator.

 

It means you need to calm down and state your opinions on the thread topic in manner respective to other posters before I have to start being a bitch.

 

Alright, I'll calm down. Blah, I'm sorry.
Congrates happy, on being a mod. Hope things work out and good luck.

 

Here we see the example of an uneducated person, trying to base his impotent opinion by way of taking fiction as an axiom. (me being a muslim and etc.) This method's proper way of use is called the "deductive nomological explanation". A method formulized by hempel and oppenheim which is also known as the "covering law method". Ignorant people, however mostly use this and the "inductive statistical method" to explain and know everything which actually is the problem with positivism and; concerning our daily life, with ignorant and wiseacre people that we often let them talk to the hand. Here, the case may be taken as an educational material. So we wont ignore this one.



The provocative technique he has in his text is so intellectually destitute that he uses religious, national or sexual concepts to create aggression or to agitate the reader.This form of hooligan style, primitive technique is generally adopted by people who
need to attract attention and gain dominance by means of self-justified and rationalized methods. What he is trying to refer as being inquisitive towards religions (or idealist thinking) is this very skeptical approach I now use to examine his text and his psychological state, deprived from social appreciation. The rest is up to B.F. Skinner, an American psychologist famous for his studies in behaviorism.


Being a student about to graduate as an archaeologist (in prehistory), I have gotten to read some texts about nature and evolution. As far as this case is concerned, his defense based on the so called perfection of the nature sounds rather religious where “holy” books place human beings in the center of the universe (just like the inquisition courts’ mind makers during the medieval times). However, the way nature works is not merely based on perfection or imperfection. But it is based on the dialectic “modus vivendi”. (see Karl Polanyi’s “transition theory”) Here, the system (nature) seems to have generated its own flaw since we, human beings are evolving in the struggle of perfection (by inventions and etc.) at the cost of environmental destruction; under-satisfaction being our prime fuel. This “flaw” (the type of “fuel” we use) in humans may later be cured by genetic manipulation but as our subject is not as complex as needing a genetic manipulation, we’ll leave it (him?) aside.

If circumcision were to correct nature which according to him we should not do so, then even our birth process is wrong,not because we cut the chords, but because when human beings became bi-pedal (thanks to being omnivores, that is Homo Erectus), the vagina had to shrink (from the size of an ape’s). This led to premature baby birth that we consider mature today (9 months). In other words, females had to deliver the baby while it was small enough to come out. Although L. Strauss was to later “improve” sociology by partially refuting Johann Jacob Bachofen and John McLellan’s familiy based sociological theories, some sociologists, soundly place the role of the woman in society to this “problem”, claiming that premature birth led to intensive baby care which needed to be done by the female.



I think this concludes my spiritual masturbation which I sure have enjoyed.

 

That's probably the most insightful thing I've heard all day. I've always wondered humans came out so imature, and I guess I know now.

PS:-blah, she a mod and she's a nice person, show some damn respect.

 

To Maes,

Please understand that this thread is about circumcision in men and has nothing to do with any poster who posts here.

If you are trying to prove that nature is imperfect, then that is quite redundant. Anyone with half a brain knows that nature is not always perfect, but what is natural cannot hurt you.

Everyone (male) is born with the foreskin. If you decide to chop it off, then it is your personal decision, however, that is still going against nature and her laws.

What nature does, whether you call it "evolution" or "law of the supreme being", it IS A FACT.

Whether you want it or not, it will remain as it is and if you cannot change it. So submit to her laws and just leave it as it is, it is not hurting you is it?

 

good question my friend

 

I asked you specifically to please show more respect to other posters. This is a free speech site, but we don't tolerate flaming and rudeness. Please stick to the thread topic, and if you don't have anything to say that is productive and relevant, you're welcome to find somewhere else, either on this site or elsewhere, that your opinions are welcome.

 

BLAH...

did some of your brain get lost in all that foreskin of yours? Or maybe all of it???

If you're not careful, someone will take all that foreskin and tie you up in it, and then use the rest of it to beat you to death...

At any rate, this is supposed to be a place for people who can at least show a little respect, if not intelligence, and so far I see neither out of this person.

Again, it's amazing how people will talk like this over the internet when they'd never do it in person...

 

This thread is way off topic and it doesn't look like peace can be restored, so I'm ending it. If the person who started it would like to start another similar thread, feel free to do so. I also ask that anyone who posts there be more respectful and mindful of the topic.