how is one defined as being Jewish?

Originally posted by FabianFnas
When I see scherzo'z method of argument, if this is a common retorics by moslems, then I'm beginning to understand why palestinians cannot ever win their struggle against Israel.

However, scherzo's attempt to make enemies out of us is an attempt of scherzo alone. This is not, I repeat: *not*, the way moslems argues.

I see the tradition of circumcsis ...[text shortened]... n. It's there of a reason, noone has to understand it, but it's there, so leave it there.

Tell me, do you get many Muslims in Sweden?

Originally posted by scherzo
[b]Blah blah blah.. everything boils down to hatred with you. It's not hatred at all.

Well, when you openly insult my culture without a second thought, what am I supposed to do? Thank you?

Strawman argument. I NEVER said mocking NEVER is hatred, I just said it isn't hatred. I guess I should have inserted "necessarily" in there, but still. ...[text shortened]... that's your thinking, than perhaps I can interest you in the CULT of Scientology?[/b]

Well, when you openly insult my culture without a second thought, what am I supposed to do? Thank you?

I didn't openly insult your culture. I said that circumcision wasn't a useful procedure and you take that as an insult to your entire culture?

Well, you still haven't provided me with any sort of useful purpose for a foreskin that necessitates waiting until the child is older before cutting it off.

You have the burden of proof of proving that it IS useful to do it and it is a valuable procedure.

If that's your thinking, than perhaps I can interest you in the [i]CULT of Scientology?[/b][/i]

Is that what Scientology calls itself? You label it a CULT to make your own point. Of course I'm not interested in scientology. I'm not interested in any religion per se.

The beliefs of scientology that Xenu nuked a bunch of people in a volcano and the results are dispersed around the word are a matter of faith and I don't see why they are really any less believable than Muhammed riding a horse to heaven, moses parting the red sea or jesus turning water into wine.

Now, you could define a cult as an organization that tries to enforce their religion by certain means - as scientology has done. However, there are Islamic groups that do (or try to do) the same.

The thing is, at their core - the only reason the beliefs of so called "cults" are not considered religion is because they haven't been generally accepted.

Originally posted by scherzo
OK, then:

"Jews are stupid dogs."

Does that make you more angry? I've heard it said by stupid idiots before ... really ....

No, it actually doesn't make me angry. I couldn't care less what you say about Judaism because your opinion doesn't matter all that much to me frankly.

In some ways I think Judaism is a joke. In some ways I think islam is a joke. In some ways I think christianity is a joke. The same with all religions frankly. That doesn't mean I think the people within those religions are all idiots or that I don't have respect for them.

I'm sure you have heard it said by idiots before, I have too. I've heard worse too.

Originally posted by scherzo
Tell me, do you get many Muslims in Sweden?

There are some moslems in Sweden, yes.
Is this relevant by any means?

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
Well, when you openly insult my culture without a second thought, what am I supposed to do? Thank you?

I didn't openly insult your culture. I said that circumcision wasn't a useful procedure and you take that as an insult to your entire culture?

[i]Well, you still haven't provided me with any sort of useful purpose for a foreskin that necessi d "cults" are not considered religion is because they haven't been generally accepted.

[/i]I have no burden of proof. You still haven't given any reason why the foreskin serves any purpose. Why would a child miss it?

Originally posted by FabianFnas
There are some moslems in Sweden, yes.
Is this relevant by any means?

And how are they treated over there?

Originally posted by scherzo
And how are they treated over there?

Is this some off topic line of argument? Some kind of neat retorics?
Tell me: Has this anything to do with circumcision?

Originally posted by scherzo
[/i]I have no burden of proof. You still haven't given any reason why the foreskin serves any purpose. Why would a child miss it?

Why would a child miss a pinky toe? They wouldn't - especially when their parents told them that their invisible omniscient friend told them they had to have it cut off.

You do have a burden of proof. Medical procedures shouldn't be done just on the basis of superstition and you've essentially only provided superstition as a reason.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Is this some off topic line of argument? Some kind of neat retorics?
Tell me: Has this anything to do with circumcision?

It does. Now answer the questions. You'll see my point in a sec.

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
Why would a child miss a pinky toe? They wouldn't - especially when their parents told them that their invisible omniscient friend told them they had to have it cut off.

You do have a burden of proof. Medical procedures shouldn't be done just on the basis of superstition and you've essentially only provided superstition as a reason.

As opposed to you, and you have not provided any proof, superstitious or otherwise. Because the issue here is whether a foreskin serves a purpose, I have no need to prove anything, because circumcision has no negative effects for the baby except some initial discomfort that goes away in a month or so, if not sooner.

Originally posted by scherzo
It does. Now answer the questions. You'll see my point in a sec.

You are about to pissing me off. Is that your attempt? You are beginning to get out of line here...

I say it does not. You are just about to be rasistic, aren't you?

Originally posted by FabianFnas
You are about to pissing me off. Is that your attempt? You are beginning to get out of line here...

I say it does not. You are just about to be rasistic, aren't you?

How are they treated??

Originally posted by scherzo
As opposed to you, and you have not provided any proof, superstitious or otherwise. Because the issue here is whether a foreskin serves a purpose, I have no need to prove anything, because circumcision has no negative effects for the baby except some initial discomfort that goes away in a month or so, if not sooner.

Of course, you'd probably have no problem with me cutting off a baby's pinky toes right? After all, the discomfort from that would go away in a month or so at the most too.


Some links describing purpose in the foreskin:

http://www.healthcentral.com/drdean/408/9987.html

http://www.enotalone.com/article/3513.html

http://health.howstuffworks.com/circumcision1.htm

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
Of course, you'd probably have no problem with me cutting off a baby's pinky toes right? After all, the discomfort from that would go away in a month or so at the most too.


Some links describing purpose in the foreskin:

http://www.healthcentral.com/drdean/408/9987.html

http://www.enotalone.com/article/3513.html

http://health.howstuffworks.com/circumcision1.htm

The first gives a good reason during infancy, but after that, all it gives is a vague thing about sexual pleasure. I assure you, I am a father of two, and I am circumcised. I don't know why; I wasn't raised particularly religious. I promise you, though, that the process by which my children came to be (and that is about as tasteful as I can phrase it) was not in any way diminished because I didn't have a foreskin.

In the second one, the guy had no idea what he was talking about. He said that if the foreskin did not have a purpose, it would have disappeared. This is a very Lamarckian way of setting up an argument. Acquired traits are not passed on, whether useful or not. If I attach an extra arm to my body and somehow wire it to my brain so that it can be used, my children aren't going to be born with three arms, no matter how useful it is. If I write in my will that for the next ten generations, everybody born of this bloodline must have an arm attached to them in the same fashion, after eleven generations, the third arm will just spontaneously disappear.

The third site gives the (valid) reason to keep the foreskin through infancy, but it also says some pretty critical things about keeping it on, if you read through it.

Obviously you just found these three through a search engine, perhaps using the terms "foreskin useful" or something along those lines.

Originally posted by scherzo
The first gives a good reason during infancy, but after that, all it gives is a vague thing about sexual pleasure. I assure you, I am a father of two, and I am circumcised. I don't know why; I wasn't raised particularly religious. I promise you, though, that the process by which my children came to be (and that is about as tasteful as I can phrase it) was no ...[text shortened]... a search engine, perhaps using the terms "foreskin useful" or something along those lines.

I assure you, I am a father of two, and I am circumcised. I don't know why; I wasn't raised particularly religious. I promise you, though, that the process by which my children came to be (and that is about as tasteful as I can phrase it) was not in any way diminished because I didn't have a foreskin.

It wasn't diminished? What do you have to compare it to?

Of course I got them from a search engine. So what? If they're not from my bookmarks then they aren't valid?