"The Caged Virgin"

[Tony]

http://www.slate.com/id/2141276/

Three years ago, at a conference in Sweden, I was introduced to a Dutch member of parliament named Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Originally born in Somalia, she had been a refugee in several African countries and eventually a refugee from her own family, which had decided to "give" her in marriage to a distant male relative she had never met. Thinking to escape from such confines by moving to the Netherlands, she was appalled to find that radical Islam had followed her there—or in fact preceded her there—and was proselytizing among Turkish and Moroccan and Indonesian immigrants. In ancient towns like Rotterdam and Amsterdam, where once the refugees from Catholic France and inquisitional Spain had sought refuge, and where Baruch Spinoza had been excommunicated and anathematized for his opposition to Jewish fundamentalism, there were districts where Muslim women were subjected to genital mutilation and where the Dutch police were afraid to set foot.

Entering politics to try to alert the European left to this danger, she was first elected as a deputy for the Labor Party, but after 9/11 she changed her allegiance to the Liberals. This, she explained, was because many Labor spokesmen preferred to think of immigrants as possessing "group rights." They had become so infatuated by their own "multi-culti" style that they had ignored the rights of individuals—especially women and girls—who were imprisoned within their own ghetto. (That, by the way, was precisely Spinoza's problem as well. The Dutch rabbis cursed him and condemned him in their own sectarian "court," of which the Christian authorities approved because it took care of dangerous secularism among Jews.)



How accurate is this article? Can anyone from Holland shed some light on this? How popular is this lady in Holland? If it's true, I think it's sad that one of the most liberal societies on Earth is rolling over and letting themselves be taken over by a fascist horde of religious fanatics in the name of "respecting culture".

[Beerina]

When your political philosophy, and this applies in the US, too, is based on validity through indignation and outrage, wherein the solidity of your position is based on the moral approval of others, this is the result you get. Such-and-such is wrong...because people hiss at you if you think otherwise.

How dare you think people should be free from their religion and culture. If their culture says to sever parts of genitalia, who are you to say that is wrong! Your desire to be free of genital mutilation against your will is an equally valid, equally arbitrary position as my wanting to mutilate your genitalia against your will.

What argument have you against it? None, for you succumb to "hiss! booo! How dare you think yourself superior to our culture!" When you believe the vote, i.e. an abstraction of might makes right, is the holy underpinning to governmental validity, you can have no philosophical objection to these things. Hisssss!

[shemp]

If she does leave the Netherlands, the people there should be deeply ashamed of themselves for driving her out. I hope she comes to the U.S. and continues her fight.

[AWPrime]

http://www.slate.com/id/2141276/
How accurate is this article? Can anyone from Holland shed some light on this? How popular is this lady in Holland? If it's true, I think it's sad that one of the most liberal societies on Earth is rolling over and letting themselves be taken over by a fascist horde of religious fanatics in the name of "respecting culture".
Very accurate. Some people like here and other hate her. I voted for her.

[rocketdodger]

I always find it amazing that people are so against female "genital mutilation" yet don't give a second thought to male "circumcision."

[Ryokan]

I always find it amazing that people are so against female "genital mutilation" yet don't give a second thought to male "circumcision."

Errrrrrr, because of the huge difference?

Circumcision for males just cuts of a piece of skin, and they can live fine without it. Circumcision for females cuts of the bits that gives you pleasure.

[bluess]

I always find it amazing that people are so against female "genital mutilation" yet don't give a second thought to male "circumcision."

Since many types of female gential mutilation involves a young girl (not baby) being held down while formerly trusted relatives hack off the visible part of her clitoris, followed by inadequate medical care, I'm a bit more worried about that, yes.

[Libertarian]

If she does leave the Netherlands, the people there should be deeply ashamed of themselves for driving her out. I hope she comes to the U.S. and continues her fight.

Unfortunately, we in the US, too many times, think of GROUPS as having rights. But it is PEOPLE who have rights.

As diametrically opposed as I am to Hitchens on the war in Iraq, I find myself agreeing with him most of the time, and he says things, very well and very emphatically, that I don't hear others saying. He is a breath of fresh air.

[BPSCG]

How accurate is this article? Can anyone from Holland shed some light on this? How popular is this lady in Holland? If it's true, I think it's sad that one of the most liberal societies on Earth is rolling over and letting themselves be taken over by a fascist horde of religious fanatics in the name of "respecting culture".It's worse than you think. Last week, I started a thread about her (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1609379#post1609379). She's getting death threats from adherents of the religion of cutting off women's clitorises peace, and her neighbors want her evicted so they won't be endangered by people shooting at her.

ETA: I see Hitchens addresses that point in part of his article Tony didn't quote, so I'm redundantly repeating...

[shemp]

It's worse than you think. Last week, I started a thread about her (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1609379#post1609379). She's getting death threats from adherents of the religion of cutting off women's clitorises peace, and her neighbors want her evicted so they won't be endangered by people shooting at her.

You must be kidding! I cannot believe that adherents of the religion of killing apostates peace would do that!

[ImaginalDisc]

Errrrrrr, because of the huge difference?

Circumcision for males just cuts of a piece of skin, and they can live fine without it. Circumcision for females cuts of the bits that gives you pleasure.

While female gential mutilation is far, far worse, male circumcision is not harmless.

[pipelineaudio]

Waiting for the Dhimmis and SLAG FAIRYs to come in and attack Ali

[Tony]

Some people like here and other hate her. I voted for her.

Can you give a like/hate ratio?

[rocketdodger]

Errrrrrr, because of the huge difference?

Circumcision for males just cuts of a piece of skin, and they can live fine without it. Circumcision for females cuts of the bits that gives you pleasure.

I will not flame you for claiming something that you obviously have done no research into, because we are all guilty of that at times. But... you are very wrong here (regarding male circumcision).

[Grammatron]

I will not flame you for claiming something that you obviously have done no research into, because we are all guilty of that at times. But... you are very wrong here (regarding male circumcision).

Which part

[rocketdodger]

Which part

He only posted one sentence, so I am talking about that one!

[Grammatron]

He only posted one sentence, so I am talking about that one!

The skin part or the live-fine-without it part?

[brodski]

The skin part or the live-fine-without it part? well he was wrong on the "skin" part, and the "live fine without" part will depend on what you mean by "live fine". Although circumcision is by no means as extreme as fgm.

[rocketdodger]

The skin part or the live-fine-without it part?

The skin part.

I know pretty much everything there is to know about this issue so we can start up another thread if you wish (that was not meant to be a boast, just that I have literally read almost every medical article and seen the results of almost every study done on the subject).

[Earthborn]

How popular is this lady in Holland?I'd say she is very popular with people all over the political spectrum. Except for Islamist extremists, I don't know anyone who actually hates her. Opinions on her and her views are certainly not as polarised as they were for Pim Fortuyn or Theo van Gogh.

But that does not mean there aren't a lot of people criticising her. There are a lot of people who think that she could achieve her goals much more effectively if she was less outspoken in her criticism of Islam and in support of atheism. You can find an interesting criticism of her views here (http://www.nextgenderation.net/texts/ghorashi.pdf) (PDF file).

How accurate is this article? Can anyone from Holland shed some light on this? The article does contain a few inaccuracies, or at least some statements that may give a wrong inpression.

The article makes it appear that she specifically fled Africa because of radical Islam, but she was a fairly radical Islamist herself when she did. She gave up her religion and became an outspoken atheist when she was already living in the Netherlands.

The article also makes it appear as if female circumcision is tolerated 'out of respect for their culture'. This is untrue: it is an illegal practice, and the only reason it happens is because making things illegal does not necessarily make people stop doing it.

Some statements from the article:
These, however, are in some ways less depressing than the excuses made by qualified liberals for their continuation.This is a very strange sentence. First of all, the difference in political terminology make it weird: the word 'liberal' does not mean left-wing here. And it should be noted that Ayaan Hirsi Ali has in fact switched from labour to the liberal party.

If we understand 'liberal' in its American context in this sentence, it is also strange. It was a pretty leftwing broadcasting foundation that first broadcast Submission. Hirsi Ali also received a prestigious feminist prize, and feminists are generally fairly leftwing. So she enjoys quite a bit of leftwing support, making it strange to accuse 'qualified liberals' if we understand 'liberals' as meaning leftwing.

At all costs, it seems, others must be allowed "their culture" and—what is more—must be allowed the freedom not to be offended by the smallest criticism of it.I have no idea whose position is presented here. It is not something I have heard anyone claim. It sounds like something Ayaan Hirsi Ali may say, except stripped of any careful argumentation. She is pretty much a moral absolutist who claims her view is correct and that of others is wrong, she is also very critical of policies of tolerance that make it easier for people to perpetuate cultural practices she considers unacceptable. But that does not stop her from formulating her argumentation much more reasonably than what is presented here.

It is rather unfortunate that many of the people who claim to support her, as well as many of the people who claim to be against her, both fail to notice many of the subtleties in her statements.

I noticed, reading this appalling screed when it was first published, that he obsessively referred to her as "Mrs. Hirshi Ali," as if trying to make her sound like a Jew.I have no idea why the use of "Mrs" would have the connotation with Jewishness, but I can assure you that in Dutch the original word "mevrouw" carries no such connotations. It is simply a polite way to adress a woman. The rest of the text obviously lacks the same politeness.

[Ziggurat]

I have no idea why the use of "Mrs" would have the connotation with Jewishness, but I can assure you that in Dutch the original word "mevrouw" carries no such connotations. It is simply a polite way to adress a woman. The rest of the text obviously lacks the same politeness.

I think you might have misread the meaning of that part of the Slate essay. I read it as referring to the spelling of her name as "Hirshi" instead of "Hirsi" (the latter, I believe, is the correct spelling). It's not exactly a strong argument that way either (Hitchens can usually do much better), I'll admit, but I think that was the intent.

[Earthborn]

I think you might have misread the meaning of that part of the Slate essay.Could be.

I read it as referring to the spelling of her name as "Hirshi" instead of "Hirsi" (the latter, I believe, is the correct spelling).The latter is indeed the correct spelling. However the pronunciation in Dutch is usually closer to the former. It is therefore a very common mistake, so common in fact that I myself failed to notice the 'sh'.

It's not exactly a strong argument that way eitherNot particularly, no.

[AWPrime]

Can you give a like/hate ratio?
To hard to tell.

[AWPrime]

I do have to correct a bit.

The article also makes it appear as if female circumcision is tolerated 'out of respect for their culture'. This is untrue: it is an illegal practice, and the only reason it happens is because making things illegal does not necessarily make people stop doing it.
It is illegal but not much is done about it.

[Mycroft]

While female gential mutilation is far, far worse, male circumcision is not harmless.

Neither is ear-piercing.

[rocketdodger]

Neither is ear-piercing.

It looks like you need to read up on the issue as well mycroft.

[The Fool]

It looks like you need to read up on the issue as well mycroft.

Cutting bits off penises is very important to some people and all the evidence in the world that it is not good for the bubby doesn't matter a hoot in the end.....

The need to practice tribal genital mutilation outweighs any consideration of the child.

Its still common in Australia and we're not even really sure why we do it!

http://www.cirp.org/library/procedure/plastibell/

Its child abuse......can't think of anything else to call it.

[rocketdodger]

Its still common in Australia and we're not even really sure why we do it!
[

The not-so-humble opinion that I arrived at after about six months of fact finding on the topic is this:

Most people are afraid to admit that something done to them was wrong. Thus they repeat the behavior in an attempt to justify to themselves that they are not victims.

Of course, this phenomenon extends to ALOT more things than circumcision ... humans are so pathetic sometimes.

[ImaginalDisc]

Neither is ear-piercing.

I strongly encourage you to research the matter. The circumcision of male infants leads to a small, but not insignificant, percentage of complications such as infections, interference with urination, diminished sensation, and occasional accidental mutilation for no discernable medical benefit.

In my experiance, threads on the this topic have a tendancy to erupt into flame wars which become huge, roaring infernos from which there are invariably no survivors. If we're going to discuss it, it ought to be its own thread, and posters ought to be issued Haz-Mat suits.

[pipelineaudio]

Im a victim of male circumcision

IMHO even using the same word "victim" for what happened to me compared to getting your entire works CUT OFF with a piece of glass or sharp stone, with no anesthesia or antibiotics or anything really makes me an rule 8

this church of moral equivalancy BS is gone far past ridiculous

[ImaginalDisc]

Im a victim of male circumcision

IMHO even using the same word "victim" for what happened to me compared to getting your entire works CUT OFF with a piece of glass or sharp stone, with no anesthesia or antibiotics or anything really makes me an rule 8

this church of moral equivalancy BS is gone far past ridiculous

Yeah. Medically unnecessary male circumcision's bad, but even the "mildest" form of female genital mutiliation involves the removal of the clitorus entirely, and the "pharonic" style is even worse.

Incidentally, this isn't a muslim tradition, it predates Islam. It's a pervasive cultural tradition.

[Tony]

this church of moral equivalancy BS is gone far past ridiculous

You just don't like reality.

[Elind]

I will not flame you for claiming something that you obviously have done no research into, because we are all guilty of that at times. But... you are very wrong here (regarding male circumcision).
:eye-poppi

Why don't you do a survey and ask how many here have had that done (males that is), and how many think they have been mutilated or blame their ED on it?

Explain again why you say "very wrong" in this regard. I'm curious.

[rocketdodger]

IMHO even using the same word "victim" for what happened to me compared to getting your entire works CUT OFF with a piece of glass or sharp stone, with no anesthesia or antibiotics or anything really makes me an rule 8


First, I am referring to the dictionary definition of victim, into which "those males who have been unwillingly circumcised" clearly falls.

Second, would you be happier if female circumcision was done to infants using medical instruments? Would that change your opinion of it? Or maybe I should bring up the fact that not until very recently was anesthesia used on males either, even in the best western hospital?

Third, it is not their entire "works," it is a portion of the female sexual system. Women without their clitoris are still able to function.

Fourth, and perhaps this is the only point you should pay attention to (because frankly I agree with disc about this being a topic that deserves another thread), is that ORIGINALLY, male circumcision WAS done to adults and older children, for exactly the same reasons that female circumcision is done today. Only because it has been (by complete luck, I might add) found to statistically offer very slight medical advantages in the west is our perception of it different.

[rocketdodger]

:
Why don't you do a survey and ask how many here have had that done (males that is), and how many think they have been mutilated or blame their ED on it?


What would the point of that be? Do we have any memory of living otherwise?

A better survey would be involving those who had it done as teenagers or adults. In fact, those surveys have been done, and they are probably the strongest evidence against the operation.

Furthermore, if it was done in the same conditions and at the same age as female circumcision, I am sure we would not be having this argument at all. I would like to ask you, if female circumcision was done at the same age and under the same conditions as male circumcision usually is, would you change your opinion?

:
Explain again why you say "very wrong" in this regard. I'm curious.

Because actually, from an anatomical and sexual perspective, the foreskin is almost equivalent to the clitoris.

Why don't you ask men who still have one whether they think it is just a piece of skin, and how willingly they would part with theirs?

[Elind]

Third, it is not their entire "works," it is a portion of the female sexual system. Women without their clitoris are still able to function.
Your definition of "function" is what?

Only because it has been (by complete luck, I might add) found to statistically offer very slight medical advantages in the west is our perception of it different.
Perhaps that is largely why it persists, whether you call it by luck or not? I doubt that most people today, other than Jews, would do it at all if they didn't think there was a benefit beyond the locker room difference issue.

[Elind]

A better survey would be involving those who had it done as teenagers or adults. In fact, those surveys have been done, and they are probably the strongest evidence against the operation.



I didn't intend this to be a gotcha, but I had mine done when I was about 12, at my request. The reasons were two. I had an occasional "rash" type problem which perhaps could have led to something worse, and I was the only boy in my group who was different in that way. Both were good reasons at that time and at that age.

I have never regretted or had problems as you suggest.

If I had had a son I would probably have had it done also, for the same reasons.

[Ralph]

[QUOTE=rocketdodger;1632931

Third, it is not their entire "works," it is a portion of the female sexual system. Women without their clitoris are still able to function.

[/QUOTE]



Does this "function" include experiencing an orgasm?

[pipelineaudio]

I tell you I would have mine done again and be twice victim if it could give a girl back her missing bits, its a TERRIBLE comparison

[rocketdodger]

I didn't intend this to be a gotcha . . . .

I have never regretted or had problems as you suggest.



I hate you :)

But my point still stands. You might not regret it but I seriously doubt you would say the same thing if you had been having sex already (if you tell me you lost your virginity at age 10 I swear I will never argue against you again because you are too good).

Also, I doubt that at age 12 you were allowed to make the decision completely on your own without massive coercion from doctors and parents (and peers, as you admit).

I could make the claim that a muslim girl who underwent the procedure in a medical setting under anesthesia at a similar age, and who was able to still experience sexual pleasure when she got older, would probably think exactly like you do.

At any rate, this is irrelevant to the discussion, because I could easily point out that a muslim woman, when faced with the option of undergoing a clitorectomy or being chastised and ostracized for the rest of her life at the hands of her peers (and her husband, if she got one) and having no apparent way to escape that fate (such as changing cultures), would almost certainly choose the clitorectomy even if it was done under the horrendous conditions they usually are done under.

Thus, the claim that "they will be better off," which is exactly the same rationalization used not just for male circumcision but all procedures performed on unwilling people, holds. And as long as the culture the woman will live in does not change, nobody can dispute that claim. The only difference is that such a claim is entirely based on cultural reasons rather than medical reasons -- but it is just as valid.

In fact one could claim that a law against female circumcision, even if it was only against it being done to an unwilling girl, is wrong because it invariably will harm her from the perspective of her native culture. So what if the girl doesn't want it done? She is not old or wise enough to understand that it must be done if she hopes to lead a *normal* life in her culture.

I do not claim that men loose as much as women from circumcision -- that is absurd. But I could make the claim that, in some cultures, women gain more than men from an acceptance standpoint, and thus the two are in fact equivalent if the decision is made based upon "how much better off they will be." The *only* difference is that we think one is acceptable and one is unacceptable.

In many African cultures everyone mutilates their face because the scars are considered beautiful. Do you think the children, even the teenagers, want it done to them? But from the adult's perspective, if their child is going to have any chance in their culture, it needs to be done.

But I digress, because my whole point of even brining up male circumcision was not to belittle female genital mutilation. My point was that I don't think making it against the law is the best long-term solution (although it would certainly work, because I seriously doubt a woman who still had her clitoris would let that happen to her daughter). I would much rather have cultures stop doing such stupid sh-- in general.

[ImaginalDisc]

I didn't intend this to be a gotcha, but I had mine done when I was about 12, at my request. The reasons were two. I had an occasional "rash" type problem which perhaps could have led to something worse, and I was the only boy in my group who was different in that way. Both were good reasons at that time and at that age.

I have never regretted or had problems as you suggest.

If I had had a son I would probably have had it done also, for the same reasons.

On the other hand, my father had it done when he was fourteen, and when he had children, he adamantly insisted his sons were not to be snipped.

[rocketdodger]

Does this "function" include experiencing an orgasm?

I do not know whether a woman without her clitoris can experience an orgasm. My guess is that the answer is "yes," only it would be very very rare, because while many women have vaginal orgasms all the time it is not clear if they can get that far without their clitoris.

But to answer your question, no. By function I mean "serve the purpose that their culture has choosen for them to serve."

You all assume that I am trying to equate male circumcision with female circumcision based on what WE consider to be important, and I am decidedly NOT. My circumcision is no big deal to me (anymore), and I would literally kill any man with my bare hands if they tried to perform a clitorectomy on an unwilling woman in front of me. I am trying to equate the two based on what THEY, the cultures that do it, consider to be important.

[Elind]

I hate you :)

:rolleyes:

But my point still stands. You might not regret it but I seriously doubt you would say the same thing if you had been having sex already (if you tell me you lost your virginity at age 10 I swear I will never argue against you again because you are too good).

In my dreams

Also, I doubt that at age 12 you were allowed to make the decision completely on your own without massive coercion from doctors and parents (and peers, as you admit).

I did. There was no coercion, just understanding.

As to the rest, you are comparing grapes and cherries. Little in common, except in the dark perhaps.

[Ralph]

I do not know whether a woman without her clitoris can experience an orgasm. My guess is that the answer is "yes," only it would be very very rare, because while many women have vaginal orgasms all the time it is not clear if they can get that far without their clitoris.

But to answer your question, no. By function I mean "serve the purpose that their culture has choosen for them to serve."

You all assume that I am trying to equate male circumcision with female circumcision based on what WE consider to be important, and I am decidedly NOT. My circumcision is no big deal to me (anymore), and I would literally kill any man with my bare hands if they tried to perform a clitorectomy on an unwilling woman in front of me. I am trying to equate the two based on what THEY, the cultures that do it, consider to be important.


Do you think it's correct to assume that experiencing sexual pleasure isn't important to female Muslims?

I get the impression that in the circles it's practiced---it's not exactly voluntary for the women.

They might not be forced at gunpoint into it......but I have a feeling if they refuse........they are not going to have a nice day.

[Elind]

On the other hand, my father had it done when he was fourteen, and when he had children, he adamantly insisted his sons were not to be snipped.

It's not an easy thing to do at that age in particular. You don't say what his reasons were. I'm guessing they weren't entirely voluntary. That makes a difference. Each to his own as they say, but I still think it has no relevance to the female equivalent.

[rocketdodger]

Do you think it's correct to assume that experiencing sexual pleasure isn't important to female Muslims?

I get the impression that in the circles it's practiced---it's not exactly voluntary for the women.

They might not be forced at gunpoint into it......but I have a feeling if they refuse........they are not going to have a nice day.

What female muslims consider important has nothing to do with anything, since pretty much female muslims don't get much of a say in what happens to them in Islamic cultures.

And I am definitely not comparing grapes and cherries. My entire point is exactly what you said. If they refuse they are not going to have a nice day (or life), so they are "better off" not refusing.

A muslim girl in a western country can always run to the police if she doesn't like what is happening to her. And her mother can always do the same thing. Either way the clitorectomy would be prevented. Even without being outlawed, no western country would let that happen to a girl old enough to talk if she was decidedly against it.

But then what would happen to them? Of course they could start a new life in our culture, but that is very intimidating. So why don't they run away, given the chance? Because they think that being accepted in their own culture is more important. Even if they get treated like sh--, and even if they don't like the way things happen, it is still more comfortable than the prospect of being an outcast.

The simple fact of the matter is that, from a perspective that is admittedly foreign to me, they will be better off having this done to them, even if it is against their will. Yet this is the same argument that we use to rationalize male circumcision, along with alot of other things. Consider the icepick lobotomy that was so popular in the '50s. While that horrifies us now, it actually may have made the victims "better off" from certain perspectives.

You all say there is no comparison but there is -- both procedures are done to unwilling subjects by people who assume they know what is in the best interest of the subject. Do you really think that the muslim fathers that force their daughters to do this are just trying to torture them into obedience? They do it because in their opinion, it must be done for their daughters to fit in and lead a normal life. The fact that this *normal* life is a life of oppression and subservience is irrelevant, because to them that is how a woman's life should be.

I am just trying to get everyone to realize that the discussion here should not be about female genital mutilation in a European country, but rather the ethics of justifying doing things with lasting effects to unwilling subjects by claiming we know more about their well being than they do. From that perspective, male and female circumcision are IDENTICAL.

[ImaginalDisc]

It's not an easy thing to do at that age in particular. You don't say what his reasons were. I'm guessing they weren't entirely voluntary. That makes a difference. Each to his own as they say, but I still think it has no relevance to the female equivalent.

He did it because his girlfriend insisted. He thought it would be a simple procedure, and that he's painlessly recover quickly. Au contrare. However, plenty of men the world over volunteer for the procedure as adults, or adolescents. Infantile circumcision is much more dangerous, in general.

[Elind]

He did it because his girlfriend insisted. He thought it would be a simple procedure, and that he's painlessly recover quickly. Au contrare. However, plenty of men the world over volunteer for the procedure as adults, or adolescents. Infantile circumcision is much more dangerous, in general.

His girlfriend asked him; at 14 :boggled:, and he agreed! No offense, but that explains a bit, although presumably you are here as proof that it still worked.:blush:

[Mycroft]

His girlfriend asked him; at 14 :boggled:, and he agreed! No offense, but that explains a bit, although presumably you are here as proof that it still worked.:blush:

I can believe a 14 year old boy can be talked into something stupid by a girl, but what makes me doubt this story is that his parents went along with it.

Can you imagine a parent taking their 14 year old son to a doctor for purely cosmetic elective surgery on his penis at the request of his girlfriend? No, I call BS on this one.

[Mycroft]

this church of moral equivalancy BS is gone far past ridiculous

I agree these knee-jerk comparisons are real dialogue killers.

[Mycroft]

Furthermore, if it was done in the same conditions and at the same age as female circumcision, I am sure we would not be having this argument at all. I would like to ask you, if female circumcision was done at the same age and under the same conditions as male circumcision usually is, would you change your opinion?

On the flip side, if there were a female circumcision that were done in infancy and was purely cosmetic and didn't interfere with sexual pleasure later on in life, it wouldn't bother me.

[rocketdodger]

On the flip side, if there were a female circumcision that were done in infancy and was purely cosmetic and didn't interfere with sexual pleasure later on in life, it wouldn't bother me.

Same.

The problem is that both male and female circumcision intefere with sexual pleasure later in life. To claim otherwise you would have to be either one of the very rare people that have actually had it done as and adult and not noticed a difference or else be completely ignorant of the myriad of studies and testimonials that suggest the opposite.

[Elind]

Same.

The problem is that both male and female circumcision intefere with sexual pleasure later in life. To claim otherwise you would have to be either one of the very rare people that have actually had it done as and adult and not noticed a difference or else be completely ignorant of the myriad of studies and testimonials that suggest the opposite.

:eye-poppi

One guy says I love the way I am; I come in 30 seconds or less.

The other says, gee you are so lucky, we have to hump for 30 minutes or more before I can come. I envy you.

Which is which do you think?

[Mycroft]

Same.

The problem is that both male and female circumcision intefere with sexual pleasure later in life. To claim otherwise you would have to be either one of the very rare people that have actually had it done as and adult and not noticed a difference or else be completely ignorant of the myriad of studies and testimonials that suggest the opposite.

I’ve heard such claims, I am skeptical.

[a_unique_person]

Yeah. Medically unnecessary male circumcision's bad, but even the "mildest" form of female genital mutiliation involves the removal of the clitorus entirely, and the "pharonic" style is even worse.

Incidentally, this isn't a muslim tradition, it predates Islam. It's a pervasive cultural tradition.

IIRC, nothing in the Koran calls for it, it's history is, indeed, a cultural one, originating in African societies.

[Earthborn]

Interesting development (http://www.ad.nl/binnenland/article335280.ece) (in Dutch, I'm afraid). There is going to be an investigation on the lies Ayaan Hirsi Ali told the immigration service, and that could potentially lead to her losing her Dutch nationality, her seat in parliament and her right to stay in the country. If the immigration minister choses to be consistent, it will mean that one of the most popular representatives of her own party has to be deported.

That's sure to place the anti-Islamist/anti-immigration people who claim to support Ayaan for a dilemma. :cool: I'd say that she should stay, but then again I'm in favour of immigration without restrictions anyway.

[Elind]

......... but then again I'm in favour of immigration without restrictions anyway.

:boggled: Care to clarify what you mean by that? How many square miles of free space did you have last time you looked?

[Earthborn]

Care to clarify what you mean by that?Exactly what it says: complete freedom for every human being on Earth to move, settle and live in any country they want, unless there is evidence that they are up to no good. When it comes to immigration, I'm completely libertarian: "Let peaceful people cross borders freely."

How many square miles of free space did you have last time you looked?Irrelevant, as I am also greatly in favour of highrise construction. Something we have far too little of in the Netherlands, IMHO. So you better ask how many cubic kilometers of free space we have.

[egslim]

Translated from the article:
[...] during a broadcast of tv-show 'Zembla' thursday, her brother, her aunt and her ex-husband declared Ayaan had not been married against her will, and that she hadn't been afraid of her family, nor did she have any reason to be.

I don't know what other lies she told. But the above 'not against her will' and 'no reason to be afraid' sound pretty fishy to me.
Her family may have an interest in bringing her down, out of revenge.
'Not against her will' - who decided what her will was? Such manipulations are easy, and may even have been done without realisation.
'No reason to be afraid' - that's a completely useless claim. Threats can be made very subtly.

[Mycroft]

Interesting development (http://www.ad.nl/binnenland/article335280.ece) (in Dutch, I'm afraid). There is going to be an investigation on the lies Ayaan Hirsi Ali told the immigration service, and that could potentially lead to her losing her Dutch nationality, her seat in parliament and her right to stay in the country. If the immigration minister choses to be consistent, it will mean that one of the most popular representatives of her own party has to be deported.

My money says the investigation finds nothing substantial in the charges, and she keeps both her citizenship and her seat in parliment.

[Earthborn]

My money says the investigation finds nothing substantial in the charges, and she keeps both her citizenship and her seat in parliment.I'm afraid your money is not safe then. Although the claims of her family in Somalia might be taken with a pinch of salt, she has admitted for years that she lied about her name, birthdate and flightstory to the immigration service. These are not new revelations and it is in fact surprising that it took a documentary show dredging up old news to get the government to look into it. I hope she can stay -- she's an asset to Dutch politics -- but people have been deported for less.

[pipelineaudio]

but people have been deported for less.

sheesh, we need your laws here! Being here illegally, driving with no license, no insurance and falsifying documents to get government aid money wont get you deported around these parts

[Skeptic]

(Sigh)

These discussions always turn out this way, don't they? Somebody brings up the latest Islamist enormity, and the response is, "but other cultures do bad things too--let's talk about that instead!", regardless of the fact that the "bad things" are, usually, not remotely comparable.

[Elind]

Exactly what it says: complete freedom for every human being on Earth to move, settle and live in any country they want, unless there is evidence that they are up to no good. When it comes to immigration, I'm completely libertarian: "Let peaceful people cross borders freely."
That's cute. Sounds like the kind of thing I might have said at 15.

Truth is we DO pretty much have that situation today. If you have an advanced education, money, language skills and ambition you can pretty much move anywhere you want and settle and start a business.

You must therefore feel that also those who can't support themselves, have nothing in common with you and can't communicate with you should be invited in at your expense?

[Polaris]

I'd say she is very popular with people all over the political spectrum. Except for Islamist extremists, I don't know anyone who actually hates her. Opinions on her and her views are certainly not as polarised as they were for Pim Fortuyn or Theo van Gogh.

Um, the note attached to the knife that was stuck in Theo van Gogh's body basically said that she was next.

As for the circumcision aspect - it does affect men negatively. Despite what Doctor Drew on Loveline says - and he's passionately in favor of male circumcision - I can't imagine any useful reason for it except to control premature ejactulation. Frankly, if you bathe, you have no reason to worry about not being cut (and if you don't bother to bathe frequently enough for it to become a problem, maybe you deserve to have your crank fall off).

But the effects of female circumcision/infibulation/clitoridectomy are far more severe - both physically and emotionally. It is not equal to male circumcision. Hopefully I won't have to dance around any decency rules here - I'll use clinical terms only. The removal of the clitoris is at least equivalent to the removal of the head of the penis.

Islamic male circumcision is also different from Western male circumcision in some traditional societies. It is much more severe (resulting in more or less the flaying of the penis) and is expected to be endured by the child without any complaint. At least that's who I interpreted the procedure from Raphael Patai's The Arab Mind, in one of its appendices. Fortunately, this is exceedingly rare today - though the women can't say the same in similar societies.

[Polaris]

(Sigh)

These discussions always turn out this way, don't they? Somebody brings up the latest Islamist enormity, and the response is, "but other cultures do bad things too--let's talk about that instead!", regardless of the fact that the "bad things" are, usually, not remotely comparable.

You've noticed that too? Whew, I thought I was just going bat-*****.

[athon]

On the flip side, if there were a female circumcision that were done in infancy and was purely cosmetic and didn't interfere with sexual pleasure later on in life, it wouldn't bother me.

I'd have a big problem with this, much as I do infant male circumcision. Once gone, there's no easy way getting that bit of 'cosmetically interfering' skin back.

Who in their right mind imposes such a decision on an infant? When that child is old enough to make a valid judgement (and while I can't give a set age, I question whether anybody younger than 15 could really be mindful of what 'permanent' means), then I have no problem. However, it's no different than tattooing your favourite band onto your child's arse; you might think it looks better, but will your child?

I don't even agree with piercing a baby's ears. Imposing body modification on those who have no say is barbaric.

Athon

[Cecil]

The problem is that both male and female circumcision intefere with sexual pleasure later in life.

You're right. In fact, there seems to be some evidence that circumcision causes reduced enjoyment for the female during intercourse. See The effect of male circumcision on the sexual enjoyment of the female partner (http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/ohara/). I've also heard an explanation that the circumsized penis acts as a one-way valve, sucking out all the lubrication. I'm not sure whether that's true or not, but it does make intuitive sense given the anatomy.

[Mycroft]

I'd have a big problem with this, much as I do infant male circumcision. Once gone, there's no easy way getting that bit of 'cosmetically interfering' skin back.

Yawn.


Who in their right mind imposes such a decision on an infant?

That's just being a parent. You make lots of decisions for your kids. Many of them the kids will disagree with. Some of them the kids would disagree with in adulthood.


I don't even agree with piercing a baby's ears. Imposing body modification on those who have no say is barbaric.

My daughter had her ears pierced as an infant.

[Elind]

The problem is that both male and female circumcision intefere with sexual pleasure later in life. To claim otherwise you would have to be either one of the very rare people that have actually had it done as and adult and not noticed a difference or else be completely ignorant of the myriad of studies and testimonials that suggest the opposite.

Damn, you are persistent.:mad:

So I'm either very rare or completely ignorant. Now just how do you propose to back up that statement?

Presumably with one of the "myriad" studies done on 14 year olds whose girlfriends convinced them to do it (nailclippers?), and then found they didn't like sex as much?

Let me explain something to you, in the nicest possible way; when I engage in stuff relating to sex, the tip of my penis is probably the smallest object (see, I'm modest too) on my mind.

Get the idea?:boxedin:

[athon]

Yawn.

Is there a reason you're being deliberately inflammatory? Or is this how you debate?

That's just being a parent. You make lots of decisions for your kids. Many of them the kids will disagree with. Some of them the kids would disagree with in adulthood.

I can't disagree with that, but I don't see the connection. Deciding on whether your kids are immunised is a gamble of health. Where to get them educated is for their benefit to succeed in society. What to feed them is a decision that aims to help them grow strong and healthy.

Any of those things a child might later disagree with, however the intention is for their health and success in life. While raising your kid on a poor diet might be a choice, I'd call that neglect and say a child has every right to oppose that choice. Same with failure to immunise. Disputing the choice in education might be a matter of opinion, however it can be rectified by the child later in life.

Physically altering your child's appearance is not something done for the child's health and is not something that can be undone by the child without undue risk.

I'm hardly a prude; I'm probably one of the more tattooed and pierced forum members here. However any child of mine will have the right to choose cosmetic body-alteration for themselves later. I have no right to impose that.

My daughter had her ears pierced as an infant.

And? So what?

It's hardly a crusade I have to stop parents from piercing baby's ears. Holes typically close up if not used, so it's hardly unreversable. However I disagree with the principle of cosmetically altering your child's physical appearance before they have the right of say.

Athon

[ImaginalDisc]

I can believe a 14 year old boy can be talked into something stupid by a girl, but what makes me doubt this story is that his parents went along with it.

Can you imagine a parent taking their 14 year old son to a doctor for purely cosmetic elective surgery on his penis at the request of his girlfriend? No, I call BS on this one.

My father's parents were not in the picture. My father's had left the family, and my father's mother was working hard to support the family, but was inclined to let my father do as he pleased, since my father was working two jobs to support his family from the time he was 13. He's never been unemployed.

Edit:Ya know Mycroft, just because it didn't fit in with your little world view of how a family is supposed to run, that doesn't make it impossible.

[Tony]

That's just being a parent. You make lots of decisions for your kids. Many of them the kids will disagree with. Some of them the kids would disagree with in adulthood.


Then I guess parents should have the right to rape/molest/mutilate their kids with impunity. After all part of "being a parent" is "making decisions for your kids", so what if they "disagree" with them. On what else do you agree with barbaric muslim fundies?

[bluess]

...
Physically altering your child's appearance is not something done for the child's health and is not something that can be undone by the child without undue risk.

I'm hardly a prude; I'm probably one of the more tattooed and pierced forum members here. However any child of mine will have the right to choose cosmetic body-alteration for themselves later. I have no right to impose that.

Athon

Athon, that is the most reasonable stance on this subject that I've heard. Thank you.

[luchog]

I can't get to the link at the moment, but it's on Medline somewhere; but according to studies published by the American Medical Association, there is no health benefit inherent in circumcision, and no detriment in non-circumcision.

There is only one circumstance in which circumcision is justified medically: phimosis. Phimosis can be treated without circumcision, but the process is far longer and somewhat more painful. That is not, however a sufficient reason for infant circumcision, since phimosis is relatively rare, and just as easily treated in one's early teen years. Furthermore, since there are significant correlational links between phimosis and penile cancer, infant circumcision can hide evidence of susceptibility; whereas putting off circumcision until such a condition manifests will indicate an increased risk for that individual that would not otherwise have been discoverable.

[Earthborn]

Mycroft, how much money would you have betted?

Immingration minister Verdonk has declared Ayaan Hirsi Ali's Dutch nationality void. Hirsi Ali will step down from parliament tomorrow.

She already has other plans: in september she is going to work for the conservative thinktank American Enterprise Institute. Political commentators claim that it will make her feel like a fish out of water. She must have planned it for some time, so the article linked in the OP is correct when it stated that she planned to leave the country. Now she'll have no choice, but not because of the "multi-culti" lefties, or radical Muslims...

[Tony]

Mycroft, how much money would you have betted?

Immingration minister Verdonk has declared Ayaan Hirsi Ali's Dutch nationality void. Hirsi Ali will step down from parliament tomorrow.


Damn, that's discouraging.

She already has other plans: in september she is going to work for the conservative thinktank American Enterprise Institute. Political commentators claim that it will make her feel like a fish out of water. She must have planned it for some time, so the article linked in the OP is correct when it stated that she planned to leave the country. Now she'll have no choice, but not because of the "multi-culti" lefties, or radical Muslims..

I agree. Being an atheist, liberal, and anti-religious, I think she would be better off creating her own thinktank.

[davefoc]

Earthborn wrote:... but then again I'm in favour of immigration without restrictions anyway

That strikes me as a very extreme view. Could you perhaps expand on the idea a bit? Do you also favor making any social service benefits available to anybody that immigrates as well? In the case of the US, I am not sure what the ramifications would be but I would think that US would be subjected to a massive influx of immigration that would even dwarf the massive illegal immigration that is already underway. Do you think that wouldn't happen?

Maybe this topic is too much of a digression for this thread. If you would prefer I could open a new thread on Earthborn's open immigration ideas.

[Elind]

Wooo (Weee?):yikes:

[rocketdodger]

Damn, you are persistent.:mad:

So I'm either very rare or completely ignorant. Now just how do you propose to back up that statement?


By pointing out to you the available data on men who have been circumcised as adults for various reasons.


Let me explain something to you, in the nicest possible way; when I engage in stuff relating to sex, the tip of my penis is probably the smallest object (see, I'm modest too) on my mind.

Get the idea?:boxedin:

I completely agree my friend. And I am not even really angry or zealous regarding the circumcision debate. I was just trying to get everyone to think a little.

[ernon]

Because actually, from an anatomical and sexual perspective, the foreskin is almost equivalent to the clitoris.


Not even close. It might be comparable to the clitorial hood, but
the clitoris would be more accurately compared to the head on the penis...
not to cool to loose that.

[ImaginalDisc]

Presumably with one of the "myriad" studies done on 14 year olds whose girlfriends convinced them to do it (nailclippers?), and then found they didn't like sex as much?


I;m sorry, I don't hink I understood you. Are you suggesting my father did that procedure to himself with nail clippers? Surely, I misunderstood you.

[BPSCG]

How accurate is this article? Can anyone from Holland shed some light on this? How popular is this lady in Holland? If it's true, I think it's sad that one of the most liberal societies on Earth is rolling over and letting themselves be taken over by a fascist horde of religious fanatics in the name of "respecting culture".Getting back to the topic of the OP, (ID, I know how much you dislike it when people derail threads...) it appears that the oh-so-tolerant Dutch have decided she isn't welcome there any more. Looks like she's coming to the U.S., where we're not afraid to say what we think about Islamists.

[Polaris]

Getting back to the topic of the OP, (ID, I know how much you dislike it when people derail threads...) it appears that the oh-so-tolerant Dutch have decided she isn't welcome there any more. Looks like she's coming to the U.S., where we're not afraid to say what we think about Islamists.

I welcome her.

[Polaris]

Not even close. It might be comparable to the clitorial hood, but
the clitoris would be more accurately compared to the head on the penis...
not to cool to loose that.

See my post, #65 in this thread.

[egslim]

From what I read she had made the decision to join that US think-tank before this whole mess started.

On the upside, the minister responsible (Rita Verdonk) has received a lot of flak for her decision, including from within her own pary, and parlement has made her reconsider. There is a lot of suspicion she acted to bolster her chances to get elected within her party - pure political opportunism. Verdonk wants to be considered 'consistent' and 'maintaining the law'.

Alternatively, even if she does lose the Dutch nationality, Hirsi can probably get it back relatively easy through an accelerated process.

[ImaginalDisc]

Alternatively, even if she does lose the Dutch nationality, Hirsi can probably get it back relatively easy through an accelerated process.

I don't understand the international law which applies. If she hasn't become a U.S. citizen yet, and her Dutch nationality is revoked, would she be a nationless person?

[Earthborn]

If she hasn't become a U.S. citizen yet, and her Dutch nationality is revoked, would she be a nationless person?That's unknown. In fact it was one of the reasons Verdonk was criticised so strongly: she should not have revoked Hirsi Ali's nationality so quickly before she figured out the possible consequences, including whether it would mean Hirsi Ali would become nationless, which would be against international law. Minister Verdonk now has six weeks time to figure out these sorts of things.

[Elind]

By pointing out to you the available data on men who have been circumcised as adults for various reasons.



I completely agree my friend. And I am not even really angry or zealous regarding the circumcision debate. I was just trying to get everyone to think a little.

I will tend to agree with you that it is probably not something that should be done simply out of habit, or custom if you will. Where I do disagree is in the comparison with the female "equivalent" (which it is not).

As to whether I would have had a much more memorable sex life without; all I can say is that until this discussion started I never knew I might have been missing something big; but perhaps people are capable of compensating. For example, has anyone ever studied to see, for example, if foot fetishes are more common in circumcized males versus the non?:blush:

[a_unique_person]

Not even close. It might be comparable to the clitorial hood, but
the clitoris would be more accurately compared to the head on the penis...
not to cool to loose that.

They are both barbaric, but one is definitely worse than the other.

[Elind]

I;m sorry, I don't hink I understood you. Are you suggesting my father did that procedure to himself with nail clippers? Surely, I misunderstood you.

Did I write that? You know how it is when a funny thought just pops into your mind and those fingers just can't stop typing.:blush:

No offense meant. Seemed funny at the time.

[ImaginalDisc]

Did I write that? You know how it is when a funny thought just pops into your mind and those fingers just can't stop typing.:blush:

No offense meant. Seemed funny at the time.

Ah. My apologies then.

[Elind]

Ah. My apologies then.

No; mine.

[Skeptic]

she should not have revoked Hirsi Ali's nationality so quickly before she figured out the possible consequences, including whether it would mean Hirsi Ali would become nationless, which would be against international law

There is some poetic justice here, as Ali is, in effect, hoisted on her own petard regarding immigration laws, and is treated the way she wants other illegal immigrants to be treated.

But, still... why do I get the feeling that, had it been a case of a radical Muslim cleric lying on his immigration papers, that the thing would have been dealt with with kid's gloves and he would have had, at the very least, a much longer time--months or years, with all probability--to prepare a defense, including the "I'd be stateless" one, before his citizenship were revoked... that is, if the state takes any action at all against him?

Oh wait, I figured it out: Hirsi Ali doesn't have followers which which threathen to kill you if you do something against her. At most, they would write an angry letter to the newspaper or not vote for you.

[Mycroft]

There is some poetic justice here, as Ali is, in effect, hoisted on her own petard regarding immigration laws, and is treated the way she wants other illegal immigrants to be treated.

But, still... why do I get the feeling that, had it been a case of a radical Muslim cleric lying on his immigration papers, that the thing would have been dealt with with kid's gloves and he would have had, at the very least, a much longer time--months or years, with all probability--to prepare a defense, including the "I'd be stateless" one, before his citizenship were revoked... that is, if the state takes any action at all against him?

Oh wait, I figured it out: Hirsi Ali doesn't have followers which which threathen to kill you if you do something against her. At most, they would write an angry letter to the newspaper or not vote for you.


I hope she comes to the United States.

[Orwell]

There is some poetic justice here, as Ali is, in effect, hoisted on her own petard regarding immigration laws, and is treated the way she wants other illegal immigrants to be treated.

But, still... why do I get the feeling that, had it been a case of a radical Muslim cleric lying on his immigration papers, that the thing would have been dealt with with kid's gloves and he would have had, at the very least, a much longer time--months or years, with all probability--to prepare a defense, including the "I'd be stateless" one, before his citizenship were revoked... that is, if the state takes any action at all against him?

Oh wait, I figured it out: Hirsi Ali doesn't have followers which which threathen to kill you if you do something against her. At most, they would write an angry letter to the newspaper or not vote for you.

Still at war with Islam, "Sceptic"?

[Skeptic]

Still at war with Islam, "Sceptic"?

Yes. Or, more precisely, the Islamists are at war with me. You do know Iran is trying to go nuclear so as to wipe israel (for starters) off the map, right?

[BPSCG]

Yes. Or, more precisely, the Islamists are at war with me. Careful, Skeptic; you shouldn't personalize it like that.

Cleon was all over my case because I said they were trying to kill me on September 11, 2001. To some people, it apparently doesn't matter if someone's trying to kill you, as long as he's trying to kill everyone.

I finally had to explain for Cleon that I understood they weren't trying to kill only me; seems he somehow got the impression that I had made that claim.

So be prepared; the Islamapologists* here are getting ready to make you defend your claim that the Islamists are at war with you.

*...oohh, I like that word...

[rocketdodger]

So be prepared; the Islamapologists* here are getting ready to make you defend your claim that the Islamists are at war with you.



Luckally, the doctrine of the Islamists makes it clear exactly who they are at war with -- anyone who doesn't think like them.

[Orwell]

Yes. Or, more precisely, the Islamists are at war with me. You do know Iran is trying to go nuclear so as to wipe israel (for starters) off the map, right?

As usual, you sound like you don't distinguish between Islam and Islamism.

Which is kinda like being unable to distinguish between, say, Christians and Southern Baptists... Or between Americans and Republicans.

Anyway, arguing with bigots is a pointless exercise, so I won't attempt it.

[Mycroft]

*...oohh, I like that word...

Agreed. It falls off the tongue nicely. :)

[Skeptic]

As usual, you sound like you don't distinguish between Islam and Islamism.

No, hon, *I* always do. I mentioned Islam and Muslims often in this forum, but I virtually *always* note carefully the difference between Islam, the religion, and radical Islam--or Islamism--which we are at war with.

It is *you* which, every time I note an enormity perpetrated by the IslaMISTS, whine, "Why are you at war with IsLAM, Skeptic?!" and demand that I explain why I made an accusation I never did make in the first place.

If there is somebody confused about the difference, it's you, not me; then again, you're not really confused, just mendacious.

[ImaginalDisc]

Agreed. It falls off the tongue nicely. :)

So you guys are patting one another on the back for making up a vauge neologistic buzzword to insult those disagree with you, based on another buzzword, "Islamist", so new that the ink isn't even dry on it?

Is there no injury you won't do to the English language in the course of your misinformation?

[Kiwiwriter]

When I was in the Navy, I was the first Jew most of those sailors ever met, so I was an ambassador for Jewry....and a lousy choice indeed.

Anyway, they would ask if it was true that Jews got circumcised, and I would say, "It's true...we're a cut above all the others."

However, I was careful not to offer to show the proof to female sailors...I didn't want my romantic interests mistaken for sexual harassment. :D

[BPSCG]

So you guys are patting one another on the back for making up a vauge neologistic buzzword to insult those disagree with you, based on another buzzword, "Islamist", so new that the ink isn't even dry on it?

Is there no injury you won't do to the English language in the course of your misinformation?Yes. I mean no. Wait a minute, dammit, you're messing me up with your double-negative question. Jeezum Crow, talk about injuring the English language.

Okay, lemme parse it:

Is there any injury you won't do to the English language in the course of your misinformation? - Um, I won't make up words without vowels. Okay, that's a yes.

So, its negation, your original question: Is there no injury you won't do to the English language in the course of your misinformation? No. For example, I won't make up a word without vowels.

So, the final answer is, no, there is not no injury I won't do to the English language in the course of my misinformation.

All clear?

Actually, as I've pointed out before, pretty much everyone understands what "Islamist" and "Islamism" means, with one glaring exception.

Now, since I have coined the word "Islamapologist,"* I suppose I have to define it for you.

Islamapologist: A person who argues in defense or justification of Islamists or Islamism.

* Actually, it appears I haven't. Google lists about 75 hits for the word as of today. God dammit... :mad: Earliest reference appears to be July 5, 2005.

[ImaginalDisc]

* Actually, it appears I haven't. Google lists about 75 hits for the word as of today. God dammit... :mad:

I see. I underestimated the Right's willingess to abuse the language to insult others.

[BPSCG]

I see. I underestimated the Right's willingess to abuse the language to insult others.Misunderestimate us at your peril!

[Orwell]

No, hon, *I* always do. I mentioned Islam and Muslims often in this forum, but I virtually *always* note carefully the difference between Islam, the religion, and radical Islam--or Islamism--which we are at war with.

It is *you* which, every time I note an enormity perpetrated by the IslaMISTS, whine, "Why are you at war with IsLAM, Skeptic?!" and demand that I explain why I made an accusation I never did make in the first place.

If there is somebody confused about the difference, it's you, not me; then again, you're not really confused, just mendacious.

Sorry, but we ARE at war with Islam. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=51642&highlight=war+with+Islam)

You say a few vague words about how you distinguish between Islamism and Islam, but then you go ahead and explain why we shouldn't. Sounds to me like you just want cake and you want to eat it too.

[Skeptic]

Sorry, but we ARE at war with Islam. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=51642&highlight=war+with+Islam)

You say a few vague words about how you distinguish between Islamism and Islam, but then you go ahead and explain why we shouldn't.

No, I say quite a few very clear words about how I distinguish between Islamism and Islam--and in particular, between Islamists and most Muslims--in the very thread you quote. I say there, in one sentence, that we are in war with Islam because political Islam was hijacked by the Islamists. Perhaps my conclusion there was too far-reaching, but I most definitely did distinguish there, as always, between Muslims in general, Islam, and Islamists.

[Earthborn]

No, I say quite a few very clear words about how I distinguish between Islamism and Islam--and in particular, between Islamists and most Muslims--in the very thread you quote.Just because it is clear to you does not prove it is clear. For that it has to be clear to others, and I don't think it is.

I say there, in one sentence, that we are in war with Islam because political Islam was hijacked by the Islamists.Explain the difference between 'political Islam' and 'Islamism'.

I most definitely did distinguish there, as always, between Muslims in general, Islam, and Islamists.The problem is that the words 'Islam' and 'Islamism' are just too similar to make any distinction between them clear.

[pipelineaudio]

I dont understand. As a person who believes in humanity is it wrong to be against islam itself? The religion is terrible, the things it teaches quite inhumane.

Dont bother tu quoque-ing me, Im not for any others either

[Orwell]

I dont understand. As a person who believes in humanity is it wrong to be against islam itself? The religion is terrible, the things it teaches quite inhumane.

Dont bother tu quoque-ing me, Im not for any others either

Me neither. But see, dear old Sceptic has informed us repeatedly that he believes Islam to be somehow intrinsically worse than other religions, with either denotes a lack of historical perspective (a.k.a ignorance), or a sever bias against anything Arab (a.k.a. bigotry).

A combination of the two is the most likely possibility. ;)

[Mycroft]

But see, dear old Sceptic has informed us repeatedly that he believes Islam to be somehow intrinsically worse than other religions…

I don’t remember him saying that.


…with either denotes a lack of historical perspective (a.k.a ignorance), or a sever bias against anything Arab (a.k.a. bigotry).

No, those are the only two possibilities you can imagine.

[pipelineaudio]

History doesnt have any bearing on the value of a religion, only the practitioners of that religion

[Orwell]

History doesnt have any bearing on the value of a religion, only the practitioners of that religion

Convenient point of view, specially if you're a christian bigot. ;)

Islam has no monopoly on stupidity.

[Orwell]

I don’t remember him saying that.
Partisan hacks tend to have selective memories. I suggest you read that "war with Islam" link I provided.



No, those are the only two possibilities you can imagine.

I'm making fun of "Skeptic", Thycrotch.

[pipelineaudio]

Convenient point of view, specially if you're a christian bigot. ;)

Islam has no monopoly on stupidity.

Are you some sort of lead paint chip eating mulligan?

Im not stupid enough to be a christian or muslim

My point was that history has NO bearing on the value of a religious doctrine

If the book says to go stone people to death, I dont care what history is, the book is for barbarians.

[a_unique_person]

I see. I underestimated the Right's willingess to abuse the language to insult others.

Most people just seem to get sick of it all after a while and leave.

[a_unique_person]

No, I say quite a few very clear words about how I distinguish between Islamism and Islam--and in particular, between Islamists and most Muslims--in the very thread you quote. I say there, in one sentence, that we are in war with Islam because political Islam was hijacked by the Islamists. Perhaps my conclusion there was too far-reaching, but I most definitely did distinguish there, as always, between Muslims in general, Islam, and Islamists.

Nice to know that some people around here reserve the right to explain things and rectify misunderstandings. Could you extend that courtesy to others?

[Orwell]

Are you some sort of lead paint chip eating mulligan?

Im not stupid enough to be a christian or muslim

My point was that history has NO bearing on the value of a religious doctrine

If the book says to go stone people to death, I dont care what history is, the book is for barbarians.

Funny, although I am not a believer in any particular religion, I must say that I have met Muslim and Christians who were indubitably smarter than you... And probably smarter than me. ;)

I don't see how you can say that history has no bearing on the value of a religious doctrine: just take a look at, say, Quackers and Catholics. They've been inspired by the same book. And they have quite different histories.

Religious books tend to contain all kinds of messages, and they're often contradictory. Therefore, religious books have been interpreted in all kinds of different ways, and the interpretation has often been greatly influenced by historical context.

[Orwell]

Are you some sort of lead paint chip eating mulligan?

Im not stupid enough to be a christian or muslim

My point was that history has NO bearing on the value of a religious doctrine

If the book says to go stone people to death, I dont care what history is, the book is for barbarians.

Funny, although I am not a believer in any particular religion, I must say that I have met Muslim and Christians who were indubitably smarter than you... And probably smarter than me. ;)

I don't see how you can say that history has no bearing on the value of a religious doctrine: just take a look at, say, Quackers and Catholics. They've been inspired by the same book. And they have quite different histories.

Religious books have been interpreted in all kinds of different ways, and the interpretation has often been greatly influenced by historical context.

[pipelineaudio]

Let me help you with your example

There was a bible before there were quakers

the doctrine in the case of christianity, was a book, called "the bible"

inside is stuff about the religion and its rules

you can judge the rules before any of its practitioners ever walk the earth

not so difficult

[Mycroft]

Partisan hacks tend to have selective memories. I suggest you read that "war with Islam" link I provided.


Name calling doesn't make your argument stronger.


I'm making fun of "Skeptic", Thycrotch.

Reported.

[Orwell]

Let me help you with your example

There was a bible before there were quakers

the doctrine in the case of christianity, was a book, called "the bible"

inside is stuff about the religion and its rules

you can judge the rules before any of its practitioners ever walk the earth

not so difficult

:rolleyes:

I'll make this simple.

Take the Bible, old testament, new tastament, the whole deal. You will notice that there are many rules of behaviour, some of them pretty funny. Do all Christians follow the same rules?

Some of these rules are stupid. Some are noble. Some sects concentrate on the stupid, others try to concentrate on the noble. Plus, many old sects came up with their own rules vaguely inspired by the Bible. Catholicism owes quite a lot to neo-platonism, for instance. The reasons why things are like this are deeply related to historical circumstances.

[Orwell]

Name calling doesn't make your argument stronger. Calling you a partisan hack is nor an insult: it's an accurate description.



Reported.

Oh, I'm scared! Do you think I'll get banned this time?

Boy, you got a bit thin skinned, didn't you?

[ImaginalDisc]

Reported.

Wait, what? You're reporting someone for calling Skeptic a bigot? Seriously?

[Orwell]

Wait, what? You're reporting someone for calling Skeptic a bigot? Seriously?

You know how it is: partisan hacks usually have trouble calling a spade a spade. :)

[Orwell]

Or maybe it was the Thycrotch part that annoyed him. I don,t see why, however. It's not like I'm making fun of his real name! And I'm pretty sure Sherlock's fictional brother wouldn't care.

But maybe Mycroft has trouble figuring out that the web isn't real life. It may feel real to him, who knows, eh?

[Skeptic]

What I said, which gets Orwell all pissed off, is that while all monotheistic religions had a violent, conquering phase were many of that religion were "jihadis" or "crusaders" or "anti-Edomites" (in the case of the jews), the problem is that Islam is going through that phase NOW.

That Christians were as violent and agressives as the Islamists in 1500 AD, or the jews were the same ca. 500 BC, is of little importance for our current crisis, because we are in the present, not in 500 BC or 1500 AD. It does show Islam is not unique in going through such a crisis, but who ever said it was? The point is that, TODAY, Islam is far more violent and dangerous--due to the Islamists--than judaism or Christianity. That there were period in history where the opposite was the case is of little relevance.

[Orwell]

What I said, which gets Orwell all pissed off, is that while all monotheistic religions had a violent, conquering phase were many of that religion were "jihadis" or "crusaders" or "anti-Edomites" (in the case of the jews), the problem is that Islam is going through that phase NOW.

That Christians were as violent and agressives as the Islamists in 1500 AD, or the jews were the same ca. 500 BC, is of little importance for our current crisis, because we are in the present, not in 500 BC or 1500 AD. It does show Islam is not unique in going through such a crisis, but who ever said it was? The point is that, TODAY, Islam is far more violent and dangerous--due to the Islamists--than judaism or Christianity. That there were period in history where the opposite was the case is of little relevance.

You keep going back and forth between posts were you explicitly say this stuff above, and posts were you don't nuance your opinions and you don't mention history. Also, you tend to conflate the actions of a minority with the actions of the majority. The overwhelming majority of Muslims are not more violent than the overwhelming majority of christians or jews. That's what makes me call you a bigot.

[ImaginalDisc]

You know how it is: partisan hacks usually have trouble calling a spade a spade. :)

That's not the reason I'm so incredulous. the reason I'm so incredulous is because there is nothing the mods can do about calling someone a bigot. It's not an issue for the mods at all.

[rocketdodger]

Funny, although I am not a believer in any particular religion, I must say that I have met Muslim and Christians who were indubitably smarter than you... And probably smarter than me. ;)


If this is true, you have a very strange definition of intelligence.

I don't know why anyone smart enough to participate in the JREF forum is even defending religion..

[Orwell]

If this is true, you have a very strange definition of intelligence.

I don't know why anyone smart enough to participate in the JREF forum is even defending religion..

Am I "defending religion"? Where? How?

Relax, Rocket boy. Breath deeply. Think about what I've said.

If you still think I'm "defending religion", ask me about what I'm saying, and I'll explain it to you, 'k?

[Skeptic]

YThe overwhelming majority of Muslims are not more violent than the overwhelming majority of christians or jews. That's what makes me call you a bigot.

On this view, of course, there is nothing wrong with the spanish inquisition, the St. Batholemow (Sp????) massacre, the wahhabi rule in Saudi Arabia, or Nazi Germany: in all those cases, too, even in the very worst days of the violence, the overwhelming majority of Spaniards / Frenchmen / Saudis / Germans were not more violent than the overwhelming majority of, say, Zulus or Hopi indians.

But that is completely besides the point, a non sequitor; under ANY political system, in ANY religious indoctrinization, the majority will not be violent. This hardly means all religions or political movements are morally equivalent.

If the spanish inquisition deserves criticism despite the fact that the majority of Spaniands--and most likely, even the majority of those who were formally members of the Inquisition--were not violent, then Islamism deserves criticism as well. Or would you say that someone who criticizes the Spanish inquisition is a "bigot" and "confuses the majority with the minority"?

If there is a bigot here, it is you. You tolerate and excuse behavior from Muslims--and Islamic societies--that you would never tolerate from any other religious group, regardless of whether it is the action of a majority or a minority. You even attack those who point it out.

Is this because you are oh-so-not-bigoted, full of love and understanding for the people of the religion of peace? Or is this because you, in practice at least, consider Muslims societies to be savages, and therefore do not expect them to act civilized?

[ImaginalDisc]

On this view, of course, there is nothing wrong with the spanish inquisition, the St. Batholemow (Sp????) massacre, the wahhabi rule in Saudi Arabia, or Nazi Germany: in all those cases, too, even in the very worst days of the violence, the overwhelming majority of Spaniards / Frenchmen / Saudis / Germans were not more violent than the overwhelming majority of, say, Zulus or Hopi indians.


Please provide evidence of the Hopi commiting attrocities comperable to the Crusades and the Inquisition.

[RyanRoberts]

The Sioux certainly did.

“Today when the sun sets, there will be no more Absarokee left! We will kill all their warriors and even the old men; we will save their young boys and raise them to become Dakota warriors, and we shall marry their wives and daughters to raise more warriors to fight the whites when they follow us to our new land.”

Here (http://66.249.93.104/search?q=cache:z4RC3K1j9SEJ:lib.lbhc.cc.mt.us/about/history/pryorcrk.htm+%22Today+when+the+sun+sets,+there+wil l+be+no+more+Absarokee%22&hl=en&gl=uk&ct=clnk&cd=1&client=firefox-a)

Primitive warfare was if anything nastier than modern, genocide and the taking of slaves was generally the rule, not the exception. Small populations, decentralized tribal government and primitive weaponry puts a limit of the numbers killed, but not the will. Native peoples were not peace loving hippies.

[ImaginalDisc]

The Sioux certainly did.


We're not talking about the Sioux. We're talking about the Hopi.

[RyanRoberts]

Stupid exceptions :)

[Skeptic]

Please provide evidence of the Hopi commiting attrocities comperable to the Crusades and the Inquisition.

(Puzzled look)

TO CLARIFY: When I said the majority of Spaniard during the inquisiton were "no more violent than, say, Hopi Indians", I meant to say that most Spaniard during that time were NOT violent people. That is, of course, the point of my post.

I chose the Hopis and Zulus randomly as particular examples of groups of people which (like most groups of people in most times) were in general NOT violent, when you check it by number of violent to non-violent people.

I didn't say the Hopis committed atrocities; I merely said that even during the time of the Spanish Inquisition most Spaniards didn't commit atrocities any more than most Hopis did.

[Orwell]

Now compare what Skeptic has just written above, in post 134, with what he said in his infamous War with Islam post, where he says a few words about distinguishing between Islamism and Islam, but then goes ahead and explains why we shouldn't.

Sorry, but we ARE at war with Islam. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=51642&highlight=war+with+Islam)

Skeptic, you have trouble exposing your views on this subject without falling into blatant contradictions. If you don't want to be called a bigot, then avoid using words that will make you sound like a bigot.

[ImaginalDisc]

...even during the time of the Spanish Inquisition most Spaniards didn't commit atrocities any more than most Hopis did.

Yet the fact that most Germans did nothing particularly violent or amoral during the Second World War justifies their utter destruction? Curious dichotomy.

[Skeptic]

Yet the fact that most Germans did nothing particularly violent or amoral during the Second World War justifies their utter destruction? Curious dichotomy.

(sigh) My point is that the fact most people were not violent during such times is IRRELEVANT to the moral status, let alone possible appropriate punishment, of what their nations does. Spain is to blame for the Spanish inquisition even if most Spaniards were not violent, and Germany is to blame for Hitler even if most Germans were not violent. Similarly, the Islamic world is to blame for Islamism even though most Muslims, and probably even most Islamists, aren't violent.

[ImaginalDisc]

(sigh) My point is that the fact most people were not violent during such times is IRRELEVANT to the moral status, let alone possible appropriate punishment, of what their nations does. Spain is to blame for the Spanish inquisition even if most Spaniards were not violent, and Germany is to blame for Hitler even if most Germans were not violent. Similarly, the Islamic world is to blame for Islamism even though most Muslims, and probably even most Islamists, aren't violent.

Wait, Muslims at large are guilty of the crimes of a few independant terroists? Does that mean all atheists are guilty and deserving of punishment for Stalin's purges? Does that mean all German Christians are to blame for the First Crusade, even though Germans weren't involved? Where does blame and punishment stop in your world, Skeptic? Are all vegetarians at fault for the Second World War because You-Know-Who was a vegetarian?

[Tony]

(sigh) My point is that the fact most people were not violent during such times is IRRELEVANT to the moral status, let alone possible appropriate punishment, of what their nations does. Spain is to blame for the Spanish inquisition even if most Spaniards were not violent, and Germany is to blame for Hitler even if most Germans were not violent. Similarly, the Islamic world is to blame for Islamism even though most Muslims, and probably even most Islamists, aren't violent.

And all Americans are to blame because Bush is a murderous idiot. I never thought you'd support collective punishment for nationalities/races/religions. Can I assume you also think that all Jews deserve to be killed because "they killed jeebus"? Skeptic is a living example of the notion that, when you get through the BS, all extremists are the same.

[rocketdodger]

If you still think I'm "defending religion", ask me about what I'm saying, and I'll explain it to you, 'k?

If you mean that some christians and muslims you know are more intelligent as in "they understand geometry better" or "they speak more foreign languages than me" you might be correct.

I do not agree with the claim that any religious person is more intelligent than any non-religious person, assuming neither of them are naive. That is why I accused you of defending religion.

[Orwell]

If you mean that some christians and muslims you know are more intelligent as in "they understand geometry better" or "they speak more foreign languages than me" you might be correct.

That's the general gist of what I meant. But my main point was that I think that belief in a particular religion has more to do with childhood indoctrination than with level of intelligence.

[rocketdodger]

That's the general gist of what I meant. But my main point was that I think that belief in a particular religion has more to do with childhood indoctrination than with level of intelligence.

I would agree. My point was that at some level, when one begins down the one-way path of critical thinking, an intelligent person who is religious will question themselves out of that religion, at least insofar as dogmatic BS goes. Thats why I don't consider any religious people more intelligent than myself. Spiritual people, yes, but not strictly "religious."

[Orwell]

Another important aspect regarding indoctrination and the maintenance of belief that has little to do with a person's intelligence: peer pressure, influence of the community.

[Mycroft]

And all Americans are to blame because Bush is a murderous idiot.

http://www.sorryeverybody.com/

Collectively, yes. We Americans are responsible for the actions of our government. That’s just as true when our POTUS is GWB as it was when our POTUS was Clinton, Bush Sr., Reagan, and so on.

Does that justify, if you don’t like our policies, hating each and every one of us on an individual level? No, it doesn’t, but if one wanted to change the policies of the US government one should start by not pretending they’re not related to the feelings and beliefs of the electorate that put them into power. To change the policies of the US government one would need to create a dialogue that involved Americans in general, not just the elected officials. That’s what political activism is; the attempt to change the policies of the government by changing the opinions of the people.

[AWPrime]

Another important aspect regarding indoctrination and the maintenance of belief that has little to do with a person's intelligence: peer pressure, influence of the community.
Some just don't use their intelligence as to preserve their faith.

[a_unique_person]

(sigh) My point is that the fact most people were not violent during such times is IRRELEVANT to the moral status, let alone possible appropriate punishment, of what their nations does. Spain is to blame for the Spanish inquisition even if most Spaniards were not violent, and Germany is to blame for Hitler even if most Germans were not violent. Similarly, the Islamic world is to blame for Islamism even though most Muslims, and probably even most Islamists, aren't violent.

I like to think most Israelis want peace and to withdraw from the West Bank and Gaza even if the fanatics were intent on continuing it.

[Skeptic]

I like to think most Israelis want peace and to withdraw from the West Bank and Gaza even if the fanatics were intent on continuing it.

Isael withdrew from Gaza.

The result, of course, is deliberate daily bombing of schools, homes, and citizens by Kassam rockets in Gaza, despite the fact that there is no occupation of Gaza; and the setting up of a Palestinian government--Hamas--decated to destroying israel and expelling all the jews, which, incidentally, also claims (inter alia) that the holocaust was grossly exagerrated and that the jews are responsible for WWI since the protocols of the elders of zion are accurate.

Now, three things:

1). First, in the few months that this has been going on so far, you said absolutely nothing in this forum against it. Suddenly, you, who are so quick to condemn "targeted killings" and "violations of human rights" by israel, are silent about indiscriminate rocket fire aimed at killing any and all jews in range. Suddenly, your concern with killing and violation of human right in the israeli/Palestinian conflict take a vacation.

But, then again, this is no surprise, since your behavior in this forum showed long ago that you care immensly more about the "human rights" of would-be (and actual) jew killers than about the jews' lives is not news.

2). Second, I should also note that, naturally, this thread had nothing whatsoever to do with israel, but about Islamist violence, but you are doing your damnest to derail the thread. This too is not surprising, as whenever someone discusses Islamism's violent nature in this forum you rush to the rescue with the "israel / USA just as bad" derailment.

But, again, this too is not surprising, since you have a long record of ignoring and/or excusing Islamist violence--at least when directed at jews and/or Americans.

3). The result of the withdrawal from Gaza was not peace but more war. And you yourself said that even if israel gives the Arabs everything they want it will still be attacked, "get used to it". So, both due to the experience of Gaza, and due to your own prediction, why in God's name do you think, for a minute, that withdrawal from the west bank will bring peace instead of more war?

Betcha you have no answer.