Female Paediatrician Circumciser: "Let's cut a penis OFF [...] because it would be great"

[–]baserace 18 points19 points20 points 10 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]lethatis[S] 7 points8 points9 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]intensely_human 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]denyjunctionfunction 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]RedditorJemi 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]baserace 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]matthew_lane 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]mikesteane 14 points15 points16 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]matthew_lane 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]mikesteane 10 points11 points12 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]RedditorJemi 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Arby01 5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]xynomaster 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]lethatis[S] 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]RedditorJemi 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Corn-Tortilla 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Cagg 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (39 children) | Copy Link

[–]awesomedan24 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Consilio_et_Animis 8 points9 points10 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]mikesteane 10 points11 points12 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 10 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah, I read the articles you linked. Uh... how is it I have reached a completely different conclusion?

Your wiki entry comes from "IntactWiki", which casts the integrity of their conclusions into doubt. When a site is as transparently biased as that, I tend to regard their claims with a grain of salt - either because special interest groups and activist groups censor information not consistent with their political message, or cherry-pick information to favour their view. In fairness, the other side does the same. It's best to look for unbiased sources, because you can still derive helpful information from it. Medical journals and organizations are usually the best way to go, because they study the issue and then report their findings, rather than knowing what findings they want, and searching for the results that best fits their needs. Also, the wiki shows no statistics of any kind that imply that fetishism is a motivator for circumcision study, nor does it state that it may be a factor.

And not as a criticism to you at all, but this blogger you linked just about drove me to drink. I've heard all the arguments he(?) has been making many times before, and while proponents simply present their case, I have found (by personal experience, no less, as well as second-hand) that intactivists and opponents to circumcision tend to lack a specific skill in communicating with people. I'm not sure if it's because they think that any non-Intactivist is inherently evil or retarded, but when I talk to an opponent to circumcision that actually wants to discuss instead of slapping his opinion down on the table with the word FACT stamped across it, and then take a big smelly shit on anyone and anything that doesn't match that opinion... I find myself feeling grateful! And that's a little bit fucked up. But anyway, the point I was getting at before I got sidetracked was that this blogger's article is a literal mess. I got a few paragraphs into each article and I just couldn't do it. Miles long, with weird formatting, and pictures in such off places that it heavily disrupted the article and made it depressing to try and sort out.

[–]lethatis[S] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (32 children) | Copy Link

[–]matthew_lane 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]lethatis[S] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]matthew_lane 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]RedditorJemi 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Arby01 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]RedditorJemi 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

In fact I here by challenge you to give it your best shot, justify your statement that castrating a male is somehow pedophilic.

I literally never stated that, and in fact in other comments on this post I've said exactly the opposite.

Sorry if I gave you the wrong impression. I just wasn't arguing what you think I was, and I never have argued anything remotely like that.

I hope you understand that I can agree with the overall performance art tactics they used at this demonstration without believing that they were right to call her a pedophile. As I stated in another comment, the person who posted this video on youtube actually admitted in the comments there that it was a wrong choice of words uttered in the heat of the moment. An accident.

I'll say again that I agree with the performance art tactic, while not agreeing with the choice of the word 'pedophile'.

[+][deleted] 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]RedditorJemi 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Actually you did the second you attempt to defend the actions when you said & I quote: "They only started calling her a pedophile after she advocated castrating males."

Nope. I never stated anything to the effect that castrating males is pedophilic.

No you really can't. This is like if I declared you to be a rapist, because you took the last piece of toast.... It doesn't matter if someone agrees that I should have the last piece of toast, if they defend my outburst in which I declare you a rapist, they are in fact attempting to justify the false rape claim.

No. They used a slur. It was a heat of the moment outburst. This is very different from an accusation.

Declaring someone a pedophile is no different, it serves only one purpose, and that's to tar and feather someone with the allegation of wanting to fuck children.

No. There was no allegation. It was an outburst made in the heat of the moment, as was stated on the youtube page.

That's not accidental, you don't ACCIDENTALLY call someone a pedophile, for the same reason you don't accidentally call someone a long tailed marsupial.

That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.

[+][deleted] 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]matthew_lane 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Notice how nothing in this comment of your addresses my comment at all, in any way shape or form: The fact is that street theatre is not going to achieve anything, nor is screaming "pedophile" at someone who is clearly NOT a pedophile.

At that point you have simply become a wanker, who no matter what your point is, will be ignored for being a wanker & rightly so.

There are effective ways of convincing people they are wrong & there are ineffective ways & then there is what this group did, which was an effective way of reinforcing the idea that circumcision must be right because the only people who argue against it are people who scream "pedophile."

Frankly if I didn't know that circumcision has no preventative medical benefit & I'd seen this act, I'd not only assume you were wrong, I'd actually side with your opposite number reflexively, on the basis that they were the group not running around screaming pedophile at people, they aren't the ones attempting to use fear mongering, mocking, strawman laced street theatre.

[+][deleted] 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]matthew_lane 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Suzanne didn't have to antagonize the group,

Ah the classic "you made me do it" argument.... The retort of children. Suzanne didn't make them do it, Suzanne didn't make perform stupid street theatre instead of offering demonstrable data.

I addressed your points by jumping to a third option, "Well presented medical information or shouting" is a false dichotomy.

Except it's not, because you aren't presenting data, you are simply making the same old strawmanned "the jews are lying thieves" arguments.

I don't think your position of "do nothing" is better than "do something poorly."

Now THAT is a false dichotomy, no one said anything about not doing anything.

Your here and engaged

They sure are: They are engaged in spectacle & hating you.... I'm hating them for the spectacle & I'm someone who agrees with the message. I'm someone who after seeing how these clowns acted wanted to systematically lay each one out cold on the concrete..... An again, this is from someone who agrees with your message: That's how poorly they got your message across.

Nothing is stopping you from starting your own group

It's not about what I can do, it's about this group poisoning the well: They are actively harmful to the movement in the same way BLM hijacking someones political rally on threat of closing it down is harmful.

I don't think the group screams pedophile at everyone, just the monsters who collect a paycheck performing unnecessary surgery on infants who hide behind consent forms.

/facepalm.

It doesn't matter if they do it once or 100 times, talking shit like that weakens our position.

[+][deleted] 10 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Cagg 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Cagg 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points-1 points 10 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]lethatis[S] 6 points7 points8 points 10 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]RedditorJemi 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Fallacy (n.): A false, misleading, or deceptive notion/belief

This is a topic that is too easily ignored. I do think that some of the things they said were over the top and overly hectoring, but people respond to emotions more than arguments. Don't forget that circumcision is perpetuated due to emotions.

You believe the topic is "ignored" (which I don't agree with, but that's beside the point). And you concede that they did go too far, but then justify it by suggesting that fewer would have been receptive to a rational protest without cartoonish psychopathic roleplay. Except that it really didn't look like people were receptive to it with the blood-splattered Hallowe'en costumes. So if their display has no effect on spooking people even into looking at data regarding circumcision, then all they've accomplished is creating a public disturbance, the way that anti-abortion protesters disrupt the peace with gory pictures of aborted fetuses (which is becoming a plague in my hometown).

Their actions were perfectly legal, and I don't see you suggesting they ought not to be legal.

Yes, their actions are legal. Legal and intelligent are two different things though. I would never suggest that we should revoke anyone's right to protest. As long as they keep their hands to themselves, they can pretty much do what they please. I don't have to like it though, and I can consider it insane and stupid.

And screaming "Pedophile" on the street is definitely in the "stupid" category, IMO. And probably actually qualifies as harassment. She could be within her legal rights to sue for harassment or slander, because the video was posted on YouTube.

[–]RedditorJemi -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Fallacy (n.): A false, misleading, or deceptive notion/belief

This is one of the senses of the terms, yes. However, the sense that gives it the rhetorical force the way you've been using it is this:

LOGIC a failure in reasoning that renders an argument invalid. faulty reasoning; misleading or unsound argument.

Your repeated use of this term carries this connotation, and yet it is not appropriate here. The way you use the term here, you are implying that because you believe it to be wrong (which is contentious in this discussion) that it is therefore wrongheaded. This definition that you have put forward, while technically correct, is actually pretty silly. Most people don't walk around referring to statements that are merely false as 'fallacies'. The second definition that I've put forwarded is now the more common sense of the term, and should supercede the first definition. There's already a term for false, viz. 'false', and it only has one syllable, which is all it needs, because it's a very simple concept.

Except that it really didn't look like people were receptive to it with the blood-splattered Hallowe'en costumes.

When you said 'justification' I assumed you meant 'ethical justification', in other words 'is this action justified WRT someone's personal ethics given the expected outcome?'. If a person believes that the ethical benefit of the expected outcome far outweighs what harm was done with the course of action, then of course it is justified. From what I can see here, no harm was done - so ethically it is justified. If you were thinking of some other notion of justification, then you should say what form of justification you are thinking of.

So if their display has no effect on spooking people even into looking at data regarding circumcision, then all they've accomplished is creating a public disturbance, the way that anti-abortion protesters disrupt the peace with gory pictures of aborted fetuses (which is becoming a plague in my hometown).

You don't know what kind of effect it has had absent any kind of data that you could present here. If the 'public disturbance' argument flies legally then you have recourse to calling the police. If not, I don't see how it applies here. A 'public disturbance' that causes no quantifiable harm to anyone is not an ethical violation, any more than my neighbor mowing his lawn at 7:00 a.m. is an ethical violation, just because it bugs the hell out of me. If you want to argue that because it is a 'public disturbance' that the protest is ineffective, then that would constitute a separate argument and you should argue it.

Yes, their actions are legal. Legal and intelligent are two different things though. I would never suggest that we should revoke anyone's right to protest. As long as they keep their hands to themselves, they can pretty much do what they please. I don't have to like it though, and I can consider it insane and stupid.

Yes, this is the point you should be arguing. 'Ethical justification' clearly has nothing to do with it.

And screaming "Pedophile" on the street is definitely in the "stupid" category, IMO. And probably actually qualifies as harassment. She could be within her legal rights to sue for harassment or slander, because the video was posted on YouTube.

She would lose that argument. Slander means spreading a completely unjustified rumour to discredit someone. This was just a slur uttered in the heat of the moment, and it was provoked by her offensive comments. They did believe that this aspect of their actions was stupid, and they admitted as much in the comments. It was an honest mistake. They lose nothing for it. This pediatrician, however, will probably be fired. So I think the outcome was good overall.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Most people don't walk around referring to statements that are merely false as 'fallacies'.

No... no, no. I'm afraid you're way outta wack on this one. See, when someone makes a false statement, that's just a false statement.

When someone makes a statement based on false or dubious reasoning, then it's a fallacy. And you aren't simply objectively saying false things (that would be stupid, and I wouldn't even reply to it), you are making conclusions (which by the way, aren't unreasonable conclusions) based on bad evidence, contradictory claims, or refuted research. I don't wantonly accept one side's research over the other just because they invoke the emotional clauses.

And I'm sorry, but I'm just not convinced enough by the sexual stuff. It's not that the research into sexual issues isn't valid for people. I just really couldn't care less about sexual intercourse. My junk is used purely for waste disposal. So I have a hard time sympathizing with men who can't get it up properly (even if a doctor fucked it up). Maybe that's a failing on my part. I can't help that.

If the 'public disturbance' argument flies legally then you have recourse to calling the police.

I did not intend the term in the legal sense. It's a disturbing image in public. It upsets people. They are legally allowed to do it, but just because you can, doesn't mean you should.

She would lose that argument. Slander means spreading a completely unjustified rumour to discredit someone.

She might not catch the Slander train, but the way they acted, followed her, and shoved the camera in her face (she really did look like she had been harassed before and was fed up with it too, as in provoked by the comments of others. Unfortunately, I doubt anyone filmed that, and if they did, I doubt they'd be compelled to release the video, so we may never know) she could get them for public harassment, especially if she has endured further harassment as a result of the video.

This pediatrician, however, will probably be fired.

People who say stupid shit generally are. Unless you're in politics.

[–]RedditorJemi 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

you are making conclusions (which by the way, aren't unreasonable conclusions) based on bad evidence, contradictory claims, or refuted research. I don't wantonly accept one side's research over the other just because they invoke the emotional clauses.

I don't know which conclusions you are referring to but I have made an argument WRT justification which you have not addressed.

And I'm sorry, but I'm just not convinced enough by the sexual stuff. >It's not that the research into sexual issues isn't valid for people. I just really couldn't care less about sexual intercourse. My junk is used purely for waste disposal. So I have a hard time sympathizing with men who can't get it up properly (even if a doctor fucked it up). Maybe that's a failing on my part. I can't help that.

I see. So you lack sympathy for people who's sex organs don't function properly as a result of circumcision, and your lack of sympathy has to do with the fact that your sex organs are used 'only for waste disposal'.

But your sympathy shouldn't matter. If a person's functionality has been damaged than that person has been harmed, regardless of whether you personally view such functionality as important. It's not possible to make real ethical arguments based on what things you do or do not arbitrarily sympathise with. The question is one of harm, and you'd like to side step it by explaining that you 'don't sympathize'. It's kind of like saying 'ice cream is good because I like it', which is absolutely ludicrous.

I did not intend the term in the legal sense. It's a disturbing image in public. It upsets people. They are legally allowed to do it, but just because you can, doesn't mean you should.

And it doesn't mean you shouldn't. Since it's not your decision to make, the onus is not on them to prove they were right in making their decision of how to make use of their right to free assembly. The onus is on you to show that they were wrong in doing so.

She might not catch the Slander train, but the way they acted, followed her, and shoved the camera in her face (she really did look like she had been harassed before and was fed up with it too, as in provoked by the comments of others. Unfortunately, I doubt anyone filmed that, and if they did, I doubt they'd be compelled to release the video, so we may never know) she could get them for public harassment, especially if she has endured further harassment as a result of the video.

If she could, then you can bet she would, especially considering that she is likely to lose her job over this - and given the previous point you made, I can see why you would sympathize with her over them and assume all sorts of previous malice on their part, since you've pretty much indicated it wouldn't matter to you if you were castrated.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]NotessimoALIENS -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]4174jacob -17 points-16 points-15 points 10 years ago* (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]double-happiness 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Did you read your own source? I'll copy and paste the text, with emphasis on the parts you need to pay attention to:

Easier hygiene. Circumcision makes it simpler to wash the penis. Washing beneath the foreskin of an uncircumcised penis is generally easy, however.
Decreased risk of urinary tract infections. The overall risk of urinary tract infections in males is low, but these infections are more common in uncircumcised males. Severe infections early in life can lead to kidney problems later on.
Decreased risk of sexually transmitted infections. Circumcised men might have a lower risk of certain sexually transmitted infections, including HIV. Still, safe sexual practices remain essential.
Prevention of penile problems. Occasionally, the foreskin on an uncircumcised penis can be difficult or impossible to retract (phimosis). This can lead to inflammation of the foreskin or head of the penis.
Decreased risk of penile cancer. Although cancer of the penis is rare, it's less common in circumcised men. In addition, cervical cancer is less common in the female sexual partners of circumcised men.

So, the only clear indications for circumcision are a) penile problems and b) penile cancer, which are a) easily and less invasively treatable with topical steroids nowadays and b) 'rare' according to your own source, respectively. As for the penile cancer aspect...

In the past, circumcision (removing the foreskin on the penis) has been suggested as a way to lower penile cancer risk. This was based on studies that reported much lower penile cancer rates among circumcised men than among uncircumcised men. But in some studies, the protective effect of circumcision was no longer seen after factors like smegma and phimosis were taken into account.

http://www.cancer.org/cancer/penilecancer/detailedguide/penile-cancer-prevention

[+][deleted] -16 points-15 points-14 points 10 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]Consilio_et_Animis 12 points13 points14 points 10 years ago* (7 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] -11 points-10 points-9 points 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Consilio_et_Animis -3 points-2 points-1 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -5 points-4 points-3 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Consilio_et_Animis 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -5 points-4 points-3 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Consilio_et_Animis -2 points-1 points0 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -5 points-4 points-3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]levelate 5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] -10 points-9 points-8 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Title	Female Paediatrician Circumciser: "Let's cut a penis OFF [...] because it would be great"
Author	lethatis
Upvotes	67
Comments	66
Date	September 6, 2015 12:00 AM UTC (10 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/3jsxa7/female_paediatrician_circumciser_lets_cut_a_penis/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/female-paediatrician-circumciser-lets-cut-a-penis.971926 https://theredarchive.com/post/971926

Comments