how is one defined as being Jewish?

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Am I a babtist? No, I'm not, why do you ask? Does this has to do with the ritual of snipping things off baby boys and baby girls? No, it has not.
You can always de-babtize children, no harm done. You cannot ever de-circumsize baby boys and baby girls. Done is done, the harm is there, even if the child, when grown up, are converting into another religion, ...[text shortened]... t he was doing at the time of creation?

Again, don't use clever retorics...

Am I a babtist? No, I'm not, why do you ask? Does this has to do with the ritual of snipping things off baby boys and baby girls? No, it has not.
You can always de-babtize children, no harm done. You cannot ever de-circumsize baby boys and baby girls. Done is done, the harm is there, even if the child, when grown up, are converting into another religion, the cannot be de-circumsize. It's permanent damage.

It's not damage! It's a foreskin!!

You constantly say that the fore skin does not have any purpose. You don't have a clue don't you? You've never had one, therefore you don't know. Like blind person don't miss the colorful vision of the world "'It's not a big deal, just a pair of gelatic organs that there are no really use for. What's color anyway?"

Then maybe you can explain to me how having a foreskin is such a great thing for seeing color or whatever.

But if I read between your lines, then I can clearly see that "Yes, circumsition is a brutal way to make good moslems (and jews) out of innocent baby boys and baby girls, but there are worse things ( and here it comes: ) babtizing small chilrdren! And they who doing this is Christians! Our common enemy! The infidels of the world! The Satans!"

I have never said this; I'm merely saying that you are not one to talk about how "cruel" and "evil" circumcision is. By the way, your posts are dangerously nearing anti-Semitism and Islamophobia. zsno got himself banned from the forums for these kinds of comments on this thread. I would advise you not to follow him. Free speech is a luxury.

Ah, now I understand, you are actually trying to turn me into your enemy with retorics? Instead of answering my questions, you compare circumsition to baptizing and other things, avoiding the real questions? Constantly comparing with other stuff besides the point, off topic? Okay, you are beginning to succeed in this effort.

You are still unable to explain to me the huge purpose that the foreskin provides. Being circumcised has moral benefits because people who get circumcised for religious reasons are more comfortable with their religion, and therefore more comfortable with their life.

Now I ask you for the last time: Why circumsize? What's the point?

For cultural and religious reasons, the same reasons that many Christians baptize. I don't know why you're being so provincial all of a sudden and unwilling to accept the fact that maybe, just maybe, not everyone's a white Protestant who lives in Europe and hates Muslims and Jews!

You know what I want to know, don't use retorics anymore, just answer the damn question. Why do you moslems and jews constantly trying to remake baby boys and baby girls into what god *not* wanted them to be? We are born with fore skins and clitoris, then god must have some purpous with it? Don't you think that god knew what he was doing at the time of creation?

Then what is this purpose?!? It's not like having a foreskin enables you to see better or be less picky in culinary tastes!

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
I find it interesting that pretty much all the studies in the "cost & benefits" section of your own reference say that they concluded that the cost outweighs the benefits.

You still haven't provided any moral reason that you suggested and you haven't mentioned any reason someone would be more satisfied with their life.

See above. I hope you don't revert to religious hatred like FabianFnas is doing now.

Originally posted by scherzo
See above. I hope you don't revert to religious hatred like FabianFnas is doing now.

My main problem is saying "It's not damage, it's a foreskin".

Again you simply say it's trivial as if it doesn't make any difference when there is at least some evidence that it does. There is evidence that it does help keep the head of the penis more sensitive and provides a measure of protection.

I'm not saying this is equivalent to chopping an arm off, but when you aren't doing it to yourself then there is less leeway.

I think the argument that it gives people more comfort in their religion is weak at best since it's done to a child before they even have a religion and they are only made to feel better because their parents tell them that's what god wants and give their religion to their child.

It's inherrently done against the child's will and especially since we have very good evidence now that the benefits are minimal especially when compared to the cost then it's a practice that shouldn't be continued on babies.

If you as an adult want to do it, then fine. If you want to have your pinky toe cut off then I'm ok with that too.

The issue that I have is that it's a procedure pushed upon a child that has no real benefit other than satisfying a commandment written in a book.

Originally posted by scherzo
See above. I hope you don't revert to religious hatred like FabianFnas is doing now.

You say that I have religious hatred? How many times have I said that circumsicion has nothing to do with religion, it's tradition. You say it's religion, not me.

You say that I have religious hatred? Why do you think I hate? Where do this came in in the debate? I just want answers, nothing more. If I have to provoke in order to get answers, then this has nothing to with hatred.

You like to snip things off baby boys and baby girls, why? Is this your kind of hatred to the little ones? Let them have what they have, and let them decide as grown up if they want to keep it or get rid of it. It's small things, I say, let them keep it, they don't have a better life without it.

Originally posted by scherzo
[b]Am I a babtist? No, I'm not, why do you ask? Does this has to do with the ritual of snipping things off baby boys and baby girls? No, it has not.
You can always de-babtize children, no harm done. You cannot ever de-circumsize baby boys and baby girls. Done is done, the harm is there, even if the child, when grown up, are converting into another religion, ...[text shortened]... eskin enables you to see better or be less picky in culinary tastes!

Now you're over reacting...

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
My main problem is saying "It's not damage, it's a foreskin".

Again you simply say it's trivial as if it doesn't make any difference when there is at least some evidence that it does. There is evidence that it does help keep the head of the penis more sensitive and provides a measure of protection.

I'm not saying this is equivalent to chopping an ar ...[text shortened]... that has no real benefit other than satisfying a commandment written in a book.

Again you simply say it's trivial as if it doesn't make any difference when there is at least some evidence that it does. There is evidence that it does help keep the head of the penis more sensitive and provides a measure of protection.

1. It's not good to have the head of the penis be sensitive, as any world-class soccer player would hasten to tell you.
2. A "measure of protection"?? From what?!? Bugs??

I'm not saying this is equivalent to chopping an arm off, but when you aren't doing it to yourself then there is less leeway.

Again, it's a small flap of skin. It's like popping a baby's blister. Sure, it's painful, and sure, the baby didn't do it on his/her own, but there's some benefits.

I think the argument that it gives people more comfort in their religion is weak at best since it's done to a child before they even have a religion and they are only made to feel better because their parents tell them that's what god wants and give their religion to their child.

Most people are members of the religion that they were raised with.

It's inherrently done against the child's will and especially since we have very good evidence now that the benefits are minimal especially when compared to the cost then it's a practice that shouldn't be continued on babies.

Except for religious or hygenic reasons.

The issue that I have is that it's a procedure pushed upon a child that has no real benefit other than satisfying a commandment written in a book.

Same with baptism. Same with a health-care company. Same with the child's name. Same with cutting the umbilical cord!

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Now you're over reacting...[/b]

Answer the questions.

Originally posted by scherzo
Answer the questions.

You think that everyone not agreeing with you hates you. That makes my position akward. No, I don't agree with you, but do I hate you? No, I don't.

Originally posted by scherzo
[b]Again you simply say it's trivial as if it doesn't make any difference when there is at least some evidence that it does. There is evidence that it does help keep the head of the penis more sensitive and provides a measure of protection.

1. It's not good to have the head of the penis be sensitive, as any world-class soccer player would hasten to te company. Same with the child's name. Same with cutting the umbilical cord![/b]

1. It's not good to have the head of the penis be sensitive, as any world-class soccer player would hasten to tell you.

It's very good to have the head of the penis be sensitive, as any sexually active male would tell you.

In the soccer player's instance, a foreskin wouldn't make much difference.

2. A "measure of protection"?? From what?!? Bugs??

From other world-class soccer players 🙂 Also from surroundings.. friction.

Again, it's a small flap of skin. It's like popping a baby's blister. Sure, it's painful, and sure, the baby didn't do it on his/her own, but there's some benefits.

It's not like popping a baby's blister. There are some dubious benefits that people seem to agree don't outweight the costs.

The supposed triviality of it isn't a good argument to perform the operation.

Most people are members of the religion that they were raised with.

Yes, because their paren'ts teach them to be.

Except for religious or hygenic reasons.

Why for religious? I think religion shouldn't be a reason at all.

The hygenic reasons are trivial and also not worth the cost.


Same with baptism. Same with a health-care company. Same with the child's name. Same with cutting the umbilical cord

A baptism doesn't permanently change the child's body.
An umbilical cord (or the remnant of it) falls off on its own.

Both of those are wholly invalid analogies.

A healthcare company has no real benefit other than satisfying a commandment written in a book??? What?!?

As for the child's name, well, that's not permanent either. If the child wants to change it later - they can.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
You think that everyone not agreeing with you hates you. That makes my position akward. No, I don't agree with you, but do I hate you? No, I don't.

No, answer the questions from the post on the previous page.

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
1. It's not good to have the head of the penis be sensitive, as any world-class soccer player would hasten to tell you.

It's very good to have the head of the penis be sensitive, as any sexually active male would tell you.

In the soccer player's instance, a foreskin wouldn't make much difference.

[i]2. A "measure of protection"?? From wh s not permanent either. If the child wants to change it later - they can.

[/i]It's very good to have the head of the penis be sensitive, as any sexually active male would tell you.

In the soccer player's instance, a foreskin wouldn't make much difference.

Well, not many Muslims or Jews have sex before circumcision, so they don't have much to compare it to, but we seem happy enough, judging by the fact that we have more kids than white people.

[A foreskin offers protection] From other world-class soccer players 🙂 Also from surroundings.. friction.

Really?? That's the best you can do?? Penises aren't supposed to be aerodynamic!! They're penises!

It's not like popping a baby's blister. There are some dubious benefits that people seem to agree don't outweight the costs.

Apparently they do for many, otherwise why would the majority of followers of two major world religions do it?

The supposed triviality of it isn't a good argument to perform the operation.

No, but it's an argument against people who don't want anyone to perform it, for silly reasons.

Yes, because their paren'ts teach them to be.

Well, yes. What are you suggesting?

Why for religious? I think religion shouldn't be a reason at all.

Well, again, the majority of Jews and Muslims disagree.

A healthcare company has no real benefit other than satisfying a commandment written in a book??? What?!?

Whatever Adam Smith wrote.

As for the child's name, well, that's not permanent either. If the child wants to change it later - they can.

At great cost.

Originally posted by scherzo
[/i][b]It's very good to have the head of the penis be sensitive, as any sexually active male would tell you.

In the soccer player's instance, a foreskin wouldn't make much difference.

Well, not many Muslims or Jews have sex before circumcision, so they don't have much to compare it to, but we seem happy enough, judging by the fact that we have m ...[text shortened]... either. If the child wants to change it later - they can.[/b]

At great cost.[/b]

Well, not many Muslims or Jews have sex before circumcision, so they don't have much to compare it to, but we seem happy enough, judging by the fact that we have more kids than white people.

Of course you're misinterpreting, but hey. Jews aren't "white"?

Really?? That's the best you can do?? Penises aren't supposed to be [i]aerodynamic!! They're penises![/i]

Who said anything about aerodynamics? I didn't. Friction - as in from your pants.

Apparently they do for many, otherwise why would the majority of followers of two major world religions do it?

Religious dogma.

Why for religious? I think religion shouldn't be a reason at all.

Well, again, the majority of Jews and Muslims disagree.

Ok. They disagree. The opinion of Jews and Muslims doesn't define reality - far from it. After all, the observant of those think an invisible man created the earth and sees everything they do.

At great cost.

Not at the cost of something they can't grow back.

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
Well, not many Muslims or Jews have sex before circumcision, so they don't have much to compare it to, but we seem happy enough, judging by the fact that we have more kids than white people.

Of course you're misinterpreting, but hey. Jews aren't "white"?

Really?? That's the best you can do?? Penises aren't supposed to be [i]aerodynamic[/i do.

[i]At great cost.

Not at the cost of something they can't grow back.

[/i][/i]Of course you're misinterpreting, but hey. Jews aren't "white"?

Their identity is not that of a race.

Who said anything about aerodynamics? I didn't. Friction - as in from your pants.

That's a lamer argument than anything I could come up with.

Religious dogma. [is a reason that the majority of Muslims and Jews circumcise]

Same with everything else then. The skullcaps, the prayer, etc.

Ok. They disagree. The opinion of Jews and Muslims doesn't define reality - far from it. After all, the observant of those think an invisible man created the earth and sees everything they do.

Well, it's so arbitrary to believe otherwise.

Not at the cost of something they can't grow back.

Again, it's useless. It's like an appendix of the genitals.

Originally posted by scherzo
[/i][/i][b]Of course you're misinterpreting, but hey. Jews aren't "white"?

Their identity is not that of a race.

Who said anything about aerodynamics? I didn't. Friction - as in from your pants.

That's a lamer argument than anything I could come up with.

Religious dogma. [is a reason that the majority of Muslims and Jews circumcis ...[text shortened]... y can't grow back.

Again, it's useless. It's like an appendix of the genitals.[/b]

That's a lamer argument than anything I could come up with.

Hah.. well at least you admit your argument is lame. That's something.

Same with everything else then. The skullcaps, the prayer, etc.

Yes, and?

Well, it's so arbitrary to believe otherwise.

Arbitrary? I have no idea what you mean.

Again, it's useless.

Again, it's not.

You're right though, it's like the appendix: useful.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071008102334.htm

The appendix isn't useless. You can live without it, yes. However it seems to have a use. Here's where I guess I agree with you 🙂

Originally posted by scherzo
No, answer the questions from the post on the previous page.

Do you want me to repeat myself? I've given you all my reasons of my opinion. Read my postings again and you have all the answer you need.

Your words "...religious hatred like FabianFnas is doing now." makes me not sympathetic with you. That's an personal attack, showing that you are not using sound arguments. I lost every respect for you in that very instant.