Bay 12 Games Forum

Made some tweaks to the numbers I forgot to update.

If that is so then yes, I do maintain that it is heinous of the judge to force foreskin amputation for a boy who has seemingly has lived 3 years without any medical problems with his foreskin, against the wishes of his mother.

Do you think it's any more heinous when it happens for any other reason?

I actually think think the might, but I'm not sure. Recursive patterns totally do, though.

It is kind of hard not to see you as Mecha-Hitler for doing that though, I'm sorry. But then again considering 75% of the male population of America is circumcised then that's a whole lot of Mecha-Hitlers.

It's actually kinda pretty easy - all you need to do is (temporarily) adopt a worldview where actual consequences and outcomes are at least on par with ideological concerns in moral weight. Then you can see that such behaviour obviously isn't worth a quarter of a mecha-hitler.

I think it was two years ago maybe that I tried broaching this topic in a more general way. RedKing's threat "it's not gonna end well" is something that matches my imperfect memory. In particular, someone will almost always frame it as "why do you care so much about dicks and foreskins?", disregarding that what is really at issue is children's rights. But here, when we are talking about an actual boy, and his mother trying to protect him, I think it's much harder to frame talking about this as some kind of sexual deviance. It always frightens me to post on this issue, because, if you've ever seen videos of people trying to protest it, there is some extreme hostility in the United States towards those opposing child circumcision.

If you decide the proper way to broach a subject is through dishonesty and trying to trick people into supporting you somehow, like you've apparently tried to do with this thread, I can understand why you might have difficulties.

Here's the problem: The mother wasn't trying to protect him. She specifically gave the father the right to do this.  If she didn't want it to happen, she had plenty of options that were "go back on my obligations and try to subvert the force of law while I'm at". Much as I dislike circumcision, no lasting harm to the child is likely as a result, but the mother's actions here (to delay the procedure for as long as possible), have only served to maximize the damage the inevitable (inevitable because she agreed it should happen) procedure.

Nothing about this scenario is a "children's rights" issue. Not a single bit of it. No one in this scenario is a good guy - you've got what seems to be two absolutely terrible parents and an innocent kid caught in the middle, probably in more ways than one. I doubt circumcision is the only disagreement these parents have.

As for your decision to approach this in the way you have - you have reduced this poor kid to nothing more than a dishonest tool in your agenda, and done so to such a poor extent that you've only managed to undermine your own argument. You obviously don't care about the merits of the case, or the kid, nor (for that matter) do you seem to have any real understanding of why people might not agree with you on issues, as evidenced by the fact that you thought this sort of subterfuge would somehow lend support to your ultimate argument.

Perhaps your initial thread deserve a rethink if you're unhappy with the route it's taken?

The only bit I'm unhappy with is that people apparently feel a need to talk about the thread instead of participating in it. This meta-thread solves the problem. If people want to post to complain or discuss the thread itself, now I can just link them here instead of starting what will assuredly be a frustrating derail.

Whoops, wrong image. Should be fixed.