Making Sense out of Suffering for J Michael

[Papist]

Female circumcision? If it seriously prohibits her ability to have sex or orgasm, then yes, it would be a human rights abuse. Male circumcision does neither of those things.

That being said, I don't think circumcision is a good prudential decision, but it has not really affected my life in the negative ways  you go on about.

Ok, so where is the dividing line for you when unwanted body alterations change from acceptable to unacceptable?

If it alters your natural faculties from achieving their function.

[Melkite]

Even the mildest circumcision does this.  Therefore, circumcision is a mutilation and human rights violation by your own definition.  You merely fail to recognize the science that proves this.

[Papist]

Even the mildest circumcision does this.  Therefore, circumcision is a mutilation and human rights violation by your own definition.  You merely fail to recognize the science that proves this.

When you say "science" you win an argument.

[Melkite]

Even the mildest circumcision does this.  Therefore, circumcision is a mutilation and human rights violation by your own definition.  You merely fail to recognize the science that proves this.

When you say "science" you win an argument.

When the science I'm referencing isn't bullshit, yeah, I do.  I'd be happy to send you a few articles if you want.  Out of scientific journals, not Newsweek.

[Melkite]

Here's the first one to get you started.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.11...685.x/full

[dcmaccabees]

Only here in the tank can we go from a discussion on suffering to a spirited debate on circumcision... Man, I love this place! :grin:

(btw, did you see the page on the main FE on circumcision? Fascinating read)

[Renatus Frater]

Only here in the tank can we go from a discussion on suffering to a spirited debate on circumcision... Man, I love this place! :grin:

(btw, did you see the page on the main FE on circumcision? Fascinating read)

LOL that was weird indeed--I even don't feel very clean after skimming through the posts.
At one point we're discussing suffering and the merits of DBH, then… circumcision.

[Papist]

Even the mildest circumcision does this.  Therefore, circumcision is a mutilation and human rights violation by your own definition.  You merely fail to recognize the science that proves this.

When you say "science" you win an argument.

When the science I'm referencing isn't bullsh**, yeah, I do.  I'd be happy to send you a few articles if you want.  Out of scientific journals, not Newsweek.

How can Science[sup]TM[/sup] determine what it is and is not a human rights violation? All science does is catalog empirical phenomena. Whether or not male circumcision is a human rights violation is a question for ethics, a branch of philosophy. 

What is B.S. is your whining and complaining about a minor alteration in your body that does not stop your body from functioning. You can still have sex; you can still orgasm: and whether or not you are good at making a woman orgasm has more to do with whether or not you choose to have sex with a woman and whether or not you choose to it do well.

I'm sorry but at some point I run out of sympathy. "Boohoo, I'm gay." Sorry, don't feel bad for you; I'm gay too. "Boohoo, I have psychological struggles."  Me too - heard it. "Boohoo, I'm circumcised." Guess what, me too. "Boohoo I have problems with my parents and my relationship with my father." Ha! Story of my life.

At some point you are going to have to put your big boy pants on and start living life. We are both 34 year old men with many of the same problems. The only difference is that I choose to not continually whine and moan about it.
I'm done here.

[Melkite]

How can Science[sup]TM[/sup] determine what it is and is not a human rights violation? All science does is catalog empirical phenomena. Whether or not male circumcision is a human rights violation is a question for ethics, a branch of philosophy. 

You're right, science can't determine what is and what isn't a human rights violation.  What I meant was, science shows that the foreskin isn't useless, it's not a minor alteration but rather significant.  That can all be shown empirically.

What is B.S. is your whining and complaining about a minor alteration in your body that does not stop your body from functioning. You can still have sex; you can still orgasm: and whether or not you are good at making a woman orgasm has more to do with whether or not you choose to have sex with a woman and whether or not you choose to it do well.

I'm sorry but at some point I run out of sympathy. "Boohoo, I'm gay." Sorry, don't feel bad for you; I'm gay too. "Boohoo, I have psychological struggles."  Me too - heard it. "Boohoo, I'm circumcised." Guess what, me too. "Boohoo I have problems with my parents and my relationship with my father." Ha! Story of my life.

At some point you are going to have to put your big boy pants on and start living life. We are both 34 year old men with many of the same problems. The only difference is that I choose to not continually whine and moan about it.
I'm done here.

Ok.  If you're done, I'll respect that.  Everything you are saying above can be said to anyone who has any kind of complaint about life.  So, do you take the "pull up your big boy pants" track with anyone if they're not portraying a facade of everything being ok with their life, or do you only show sympathy to those whose problems you can personally understand?

[J Michael]

How can Science[sup]TM[/sup] determine what it is and is not a human rights violation? All science does is catalog empirical phenomena. Whether or not male circumcision is a human rights violation is a question for ethics, a branch of philosophy. 

You're right, science can't determine what is and what isn't a human rights violation.  What I meant was, science shows that the foreskin isn't useless, it's not a minor alteration but rather significant.  That can all be shown empirically.

What is B.S. is your whining and complaining about a minor alteration in your body that does not stop your body from functioning. You can still have sex; you can still orgasm: and whether or not you are good at making a woman orgasm has more to do with whether or not you choose to have sex with a woman and whether or not you choose to it do well.

I'm sorry but at some point I run out of sympathy. "Boohoo, I'm gay." Sorry, don't feel bad for you; I'm gay too. "Boohoo, I have psychological struggles."  Me too - heard it. "Boohoo, I'm circumcised." Guess what, me too. "Boohoo I have problems with my parents and my relationship with my father." Ha! Story of my life.

At some point you are going to have to put your big boy pants on and start living life. We are both 34 year old men with many of the same problems. The only difference is that I choose to not continually whine and moan about it.
I'm done here.

Ok.  If you're done, I'll respect that.  Everything you are saying above can be said to anyone who has any kind of complaint about life.  So, do you take the "pull up your big boy pants" track with anyone if they're not portraying a facade of everything being ok with their life, or do you only show sympathy to those whose problems you can personally understand?

Was that a rhetorical question, Melkite?  Because Papist said he was done here.  Perhaps you're trying to entice him, with a question that really has no merits imho, given what I know about him,  into further "discussion" which he clearly said he isn't interested in. 

I've heard this in a number of places but the one that stands out to me at the moment is from Fr. Tom Hopko, of blessed memory: "The whole of the spiritual life is in what you do with what you've been dealt."  Very much worth pondering.

With that, I'm done here, too.  Like I said before in slightly different words, arguing in circles gets tedious very rapidly.

I will keep you in my prayers.