Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)

Comments by Peacebeuponme


1301. Could there be a Darwinian Account of Human Creativity?

Comment #108485 by Peacebeuponme on January 7, 2008 at 3:43 am

Oh for fuck's sake PlagioClase, here's some of what d'Souza says:

I suspect that these two factors may have played a role, but the main reason for Dawkins' remarkable self-identification as a cultural Christian is that he has slowly come to realize that even the values that he cherishes--values such as individual dignity, science as an autonomous enterprise, the equal dignity of women, the abolition of slavery, and compassion as a social virtue--came into the West because of Christianity.
I'm sorry, but christianity just cannot claim all that. Not least because slavery and the subjugation of women were and are mandated by the bible.

Just because the west became more liberal at the same time as remaining majority christain, does not mean the two are explicitly and exclusively linked.

1302. Could there be a Darwinian Account of Human Creativity?

Comment #108480 by Peacebeuponme on January 7, 2008 at 3:23 am

Wooter

First the activities in our like growing mustache or beard will still go on for a couple of days after we die
That's a myth. Everything stops growing when you die (including hair, fingernails). The myth is thought to come from the optical illusion of growth caused by the skin decaying and receding.

1303. Mother Nature is Not Our Friend

Comment #108374 by Peacebeuponme on January 6, 2008 at 3:17 pm

Steve Zara - good luck with qster!

1304. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #108368 by Peacebeuponme on January 6, 2008 at 2:54 pm

ianmkz

One of the contingent consequences is that the victim, supposing they have survived, can later offer others who have gone through similar traumas the kind of consolation which cannot be offered by someone who has never been there.
Odd. That's the second time I've heard the argument today. The first was in a CBC Radio documentary about The Secret. It was pretty chilling then as well.
The argument is akin to saying to the families of the victims of September the 11th "well, if it hadn't have happened, you wouldn't have had the compensation from the government", or saying to a person who has been blinded "well, look how great your hearing is now" in the sense that something positive comes only because something negative happens. Its just a pathetic argument and shows that the theist really is clutching at straws.

1305. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #108330 by Peacebeuponme on January 6, 2008 at 2:00 pm

ADH

Ok, but there are a few here who post a lot more often than me and sometimes find it tiresome to hear the same old arguments trotted out time after time by the theists who contribute. Sometimes baiting and humour are a welcome distraction from having to cut and paste previous rebuttals, or re-provide references to web resources.

For me, just a response would have been nice, but its your look out. You say you are keen on debate, so I guess I'll just have to wait and see.

1306. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #108321 by Peacebeuponme on January 6, 2008 at 1:37 pm

ADH

rather than just rubbishing them as some others have done.
I'm not sure whether you're including me in this catch-all, but I'll respond anyway. I don't think its right for you to wave away dissenting views in this way. There are some serious arguments put forward that need addressing if you want to maintain your position. If you do not want to hear differing opinion, then why post in the first place?

Steve makes the point that he finds your way of thinking fascinating. I am more inclined to say that I find it extremely distressing. I do want to "rubbish" some of your ideas because I think they have negative consequences in the real world. I think they should be countered as strongly as possible and shown up for the bad reasoning they are (although others on this site can do that far better than I).

However, I am genuinely interested to see if you have any good arguments against what I am saying. I would love to see a new theist idea that got me thinking. If you get offended so easily and shut up shop so quickly there is little hope that either of us can gain anything.

What am I to conclude if you do not reply to the points made earlier? That you have no good arguments, or that you just don't want to let us in on them?

(Edit: In my scanning of Steve's post, I missed that he had already covered the "distressing" angle also!)

1307. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #108279 by Peacebeuponme on January 6, 2008 at 11:32 am

ADH - Are you conceding the points raised in my posts (and others), or do you have a response?

I'm sure you must have a satistfactory rebuttal, since you won't have re-evaluated your beliefs as a result of this thread.

1308. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #108243 by Peacebeuponme on January 6, 2008 at 9:57 am

ADH

Peacebeuponme, what would you say to the girl if she were your daughter? How would you console her?
You are missing the point. You claim God's purposes are good, yet as part of this goodness he permits rape. I'd say that I don't think much of God's purposes in that case, and the fact that rape (and other suffering) exists, suggests that there is no such thing as an all-powerful, all-good, creator God.

I don't have a daughter, but even in the hypothetical case, I cannot right now imagine what I would do to console her, though I suppose I would try my best to and to be there for her (whatever form that would take). I don't think it has any relevance to our discussion though, except that the sentence "well, at least you can now spend some quality charitable hours at a rape crisis centre" would not immediately come to mind.

1309. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #108234 by Peacebeuponme on January 6, 2008 at 9:41 am

Peacebeuponme, I must say that I am with Francis Collins in that one.
I'm not surprised.
As for God permitting rape and murder, you say that a benevolent God would stop it. How? By suddenly making the aggressor impotent, by setting up a force-field, by turning bullets to butter before they hit their target?
You seem to believe in a fairly crappy, useless God. Your God is not omnipotent then? Maybe you are a deist really.
That is something that God WILL do something about. He will judge every rape, every act of aggression.
How can you be so arrogant as to presume to know the mind of God?
There is also hope for the victim who cn see their suffering as having been permitted by a God whose ultimate purposes are for GOOD.
Now I want to be sick. "Bit of a tough break, that rape and all. But don't worry too much - God loves you and his ultimate purpose is good. He just felt you needed to be raped as part of his plan (and is a bit of a wimp who couldn't have helped anyway)."

I'm sorry ADH, but your attitude is disgusting and immoral.

One of the contingent consequences is that the victim, supposing they have survived, can later offer others who have gone through similar traumas the kind of consolation which cannot be offered by someone who has never been there.
Of course, but far better for them to have not to have happened in the first place. If that is God's plan, then it is a terrible plan.

1310. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #108220 by Peacebeuponme on January 6, 2008 at 9:17 am

ADH

I believe that suffering does not only give us great art
Hmmm, think I'd plump for the not-suffering over the art if given the choice...

Christians will forever squirm over the suffering problem (one which atheists don't have, of course). Here's Francis Collins on terrible sexual assault suffered by his daughter:

"…my daughter would say that this experience provided her with the opportunity and motivation to counsel and comfort others who have gone through the same kind of assault."

An attitude I find deeply unsettling. It also seems a bit circular to me as well, since if God did not allow any rapes, then this one benefit is useless anyway.

1311. Archbishop of Canterbury Praises Richard Dawkins

Comment #107114 by Peacebeuponme on January 4, 2008 at 5:37 am

JD Cherry

I like Rowan Williams. I honestly don't think all the mean-spiritedness here is warranted.
Well, while he wears the robes and the crosses, is kept well by the church and professed belief in fairly stories, I think some negativity towards him is justified.

He does seem like a nice chap, and has some pretty liberal views. However, while he helps promote untruth, woolly thinking and reverence for an incoherent ancient work of fiction(not to mention indirect support for the less moderate churchgoer, in common with all moderates), he still has a lot to answer for.

1312. Debate between Michael Shermer and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #102066 by Peacebeuponme on December 21, 2007 at 1:55 pm

bankrupt idoligy like athieism wither in the face of truth and reason
Yay! Another krazy keyboard artist comes along. This one seems a little improved on Wooter though.

Can I just say, dsouzaphile: You're wrong. By the way, Atheism makes no claims (its safer that way). Can you provide any evidence for the claims of Christianity? The other Christians seem to have forgot to provide any.

Also, d'Souza can have all the debate wins he wants, none of the prominent atheists have said anything as disgusting about theists as d'Souza's Virginia Tech comments about atheists.

1313. Interview with Richard Dawkins: On Christmas

Comment #101890 by Peacebeuponme on December 21, 2007 at 4:52 am

However, religious hymns with content that celebrates real world violence, or appears to do so, I would have an ethical objection to singing.
I think that's an important distinction. I mean, being religious is not the same as being racist (!), so I'm not sure we can compare singing a racist, or homophobic, song to singing a carol. Carols may be full of nonsense, but generally not bigoted or violent nonsense.

I wouldn't go to a Prussian Blue concert even if teen pop was my thing.

1314. Do the laws of God trump those of man?

Comment #101842 by Peacebeuponme on December 21, 2007 at 2:44 am

Wooter

.(this is an answer to Peacebeuponme who sent me a web page where i watched a guy who say nature developed the eye(!))
Nope, sorry, not me mate, do you actually check what you are writing before submitting?

Seriously if you are going to use the complexity of the eye as an argument on your side, you really are poorly read and ill equipped to debate. Or a troll. Please, please stop.

1315. Do the laws of God trump those of man?

Comment #101800 by Peacebeuponme on December 21, 2007 at 1:58 am

Wooter 115 - flagged as troll. That post is one of the most inane things I have ever read.

1316. This Week's Flea

Comment #100656 by Peacebeuponme on December 19, 2007 at 4:30 am

I need my degree so I can add my name to the Discovery Institute's list of Darwin dissenters!
I realise that was tongue-in-cheek mate, but I really did feel sorry for you reading that.

1317. Biologist fired for beliefs, suit says

Comment #100640 by Peacebeuponme on December 19, 2007 at 3:13 am

ow you tell me how DNA soup came out in the first place without being evasive, offensive, referring me to web site jungles. My students and I are all ears. tells us simply how DNA soup popped out.
You are confusing evolution and abiogenesis.

Abiogenesis is not fully understood yet, but scientists are working on it. The burden is on you to provide evidence for your god hypothesis, as you seem to think this is the answer to this complex problem.

Any more repetition of your mangled, incoherent arguments, and I'm flagging you as a troll.

1318. Biologist fired for beliefs, suit says

Comment #99993 by Peacebeuponme on December 18, 2007 at 3:16 am

Please do not share this with specifically primary school kids. They will tease you so badly. Because I tried and they really went wild while making jokes.
Wooter, you are a dangerously stupid man. I really hope you do not get many future opportunities to mis-educate children of this world.

1319. God rest you merry atheist

Comment #99992 by Peacebeuponme on December 18, 2007 at 3:08 am

Once again, most of you are missing the point when you compare pop songs and fiction written as fiction with religious rituals.
I wasn't. I was comparing a religious ritual (well, a song), with a football ritual (well, a chant).

I don't really see the difference between my scenario and signing carols. I suspect no Milwall fan would likely sing "I'm forever blowing bubbles", but its no problem for neutrals.

(with apologies to those from the US and those with no interest in the beautiful game)

1320. God rest you merry atheist

Comment #99985 by Peacebeuponme on December 18, 2007 at 2:48 am

How insulting to those who mean every word of it?
Diacanu: And insulting?? Grow up.
Yes, I once went to a West Ham game even though I'm a Cardiff City supporter and sang "I'm forever blowing bubbles" and "There's only one Dean Ashton". How insulting that was to the real hammers fans.

1321. Happy Newton Day!

Comment #99765 by Peacebeuponme on December 17, 2007 at 1:56 pm

It's like a breath of fresh air having an open-minded believer like you on board!
Would just like to agree with that. I was fairly stunned, but really pleased with
Well, that is fair enough. I am happy to say that I am not sure what is going on. I'll have to keep reading.
That's pretty much where I an. Indeed where we all are, to different degrees, on the workings the universe.

1322. Dawkins: I'm a cultural Christian

Comment #99759 by Peacebeuponme on December 17, 2007 at 1:47 pm

This was covered brilliantly by Stephen Fry on QI on Friday. Converservatives have in in their head that Christmas is under attack from woolly liberal multi-culturalism (the oft cited "Winterval" is a complete over-blowing of a small marketing campaign in Birmingham 9 years ago) when nothing of the sort is happening.

But the Sun and the Daily Mail need their hysterical headlines.

I've got no problem putting a bit of Cliff Richard on and singing along with the family at christmas(though maybe I should for entirely aural reasons).

1323. Creationists plan British theme park

Comment #99673 by Peacebeuponme on December 17, 2007 at 9:39 am

Being the big softy that I am, I am not sure that 'deluging' is quite the right approach
Probably a little childish. However, it does get boring when I can't remember many theists who have come over here with even a hint of a cogent argument or something that hasn't been dealt with many times before. Then you go to their site and they say "strawman, strawman" when you point out their irrationality and "Dawkins is lightweight", without actually presenting a clear position, or examples of "heavyweight" theists who can refute Dawkins (All the "fleas" have been middlebrow at best).

1324. Do the laws of God trump those of man?

Comment #99670 by Peacebeuponme on December 17, 2007 at 9:33 am

The land-rights issue was political, not religious. And anyway, the situation is different in the north.
Yes, because the UN-controlled zone has brought some relief and dignity to my people. Plus they are arranging for constructive dialogue between community leaders and of course there are more jos in the north.

Ban-Ki Moon may point there to defend his strategy, but sadly, its a different story elsewhere

1325. Do the laws of God trump those of man?

Comment #99644 by Peacebeuponme on December 17, 2007 at 8:41 am

Wel, that certainly explains the source of your misconceptions. We at the Church of God's Light are not fooled by such incorrect interpretations.
I think I could therefore hazard a guess at your views of the land-rights of those of my brothers who were denied the green fields gifted to them from our Lord during the 1963-70 "War of Light". The occupation cannot go on.

However, I would hope in the sprit of unity we could come together to overcome the bigger evil - the prevalance of ungodly a-lightists, which are among us even as we speak.

Better to believe in some Light religion, than not believe.

1326. Do the laws of God trump those of man?

Comment #99633 by Peacebeuponme on December 17, 2007 at 8:20 am

Indeed, by using car headlamps to light our way at night we are both demonstrating our lack of faith as well as blaspheming against the Almighty
It is undoubtedly true that the Godless blaspheme in the face of the Almighty when they have no faith to be guided by our Lord. "The fool shall seek the false comfort of the headlamp", said St Matthew. Would that his words be heeded now. I would maintain though, that the blasphemy comes from the unwillingness to be guided rather than the creation of heretical light.

I thank you, Sir for your concern that I "repent" and save my eternal soul from the fires, but I'm afraid here at the New Church of Light and God, we must find the Lord through the True Path. We will hold no counsel with Light-Deniers who would move us from this path and away from God's will.

1327. Do the laws of God trump those of man?

Comment #99618 by Peacebeuponme on December 17, 2007 at 7:40 am

Irate-Atheist

Are you familiar with Paul Tillich's work on the subject? He presents a convincing argument that it was never God's intention to ban all artificial light – indeed, by creating light in the first place he was guiding man towards his own invention (man being created in God's image).

Earlier scholars have often mis-read or mis-translated certain passages such as:

"The light that guides you comes only through I";
"That [artificial] torch illuminates thy sinfulness"; or indeed
"Thou shall not preach by plasmascreen" (some have interpreted this wrongly as referring to all "light-boxes", but recent work by Michael Drosnin suggests a coded message specifically for plasma screens),

as confirming God's hatred of man-made light.

Tillich maintains that God's commands are intended to avert use of light of a certain strength or clarity. God knew that such light would show us too clearly and highlight our sins, from which we would come further corrupted into ever more sin.

Sadly, generations of electricians and lantern-makers were persecuted by fundamentalists backed-up by bad scholarship.

1328. Do the laws of God trump those of man?

Comment #99584 by Peacebeuponme on December 17, 2007 at 5:46 am

irate-atheist. I'm afraid you are reading a bad translation. Once again God has shown His prescience in the actual line:

"Thou shall not preach on the plasmascreen, which is sharp of picture."

1329. Creationists plan British theme park

Comment #99582 by Peacebeuponme on December 17, 2007 at 5:42 am

Steve99 and Briancoughlanworldcitizen

Just went over to the site and saw a few of your posts. Great stuff chaps. It would be good you could organise a time and a chosen theist site, so that a bunch of us could go over there and deluge it for a bit. Even though most of the fun would be winding the theists up, there may be a few who get something positive out of a bit of rationality.

Actually, I'd like to see Josh link a few sites here. That way whenever someone has a bit of time they could visit and get involved. May it could be the "Muddy-thinking stagnant pool" corner?

1330. Do the laws of God trump those of man?

Comment #99578 by Peacebeuponme on December 17, 2007 at 5:19 am

OK God, I'll see your Leviticus and raise you two Criminal Justice Bills and a US Patriot Act.
I've just had a revelation. Turns out God's laws include:

(1) Earning money out of a war is a sin
(2) Televangelism is a sin
(3) Imperialism is a sin
(4) Homophobia and sexism are sins
(5) All people have equal rights to palestine
(6) I am to be appointed supreme ruler of the earth with absolute power to promote and police God's laws. I am also personelly exempt from any Law.

I think I'm now holding the best cards.

1331. Creation college seeks state's OK to train teachers

Comment #99568 by Peacebeuponme on December 17, 2007 at 4:38 am

It doesn't help when Evolution gets mischaracterised with shit like this:

evolution – the theory that humans and other species evolved from lower forms of life
Not lower forms of life, other forms of life.

If in the future people with only 3 fingers and one thumb were naturally selected such that all humans were a finger down on us, would they still be able to refer to themselves as "higher beings" notwithstanding any other modifications? I know that's a simplistic example, but hopefully makes the point. What seems to bother creationists most about evolution is the thought that they came from a "lower" being.

1332. Creationists plan British theme park

Comment #99561 by Peacebeuponme on December 17, 2007 at 3:54 am

The point about there not being a theme park on Holocaust Denial - or perhaps one on the merits of slavery - is because people would NOT stand for it.
Agreed. We wouldn't allow a combat 18 themepark which had a great deal of educational and recreational value, but which also sought to push racism on to children. Creationists teach preposterous stories and are virtually all homophobes, and therefore need to be stopped.

1333. Creationists plan British theme park

Comment #99550 by Peacebeuponme on December 17, 2007 at 3:28 am

'It will be a halfway house for youngsters,' Jones said. 'Today all they do is binge drink. We will be able to offer them an alternative.'
Comments like this really annoy me. They are so blinkered. If you consider the Sun and the Dail Mail as gospel, then you might think that every under-16 in the country was skipping school and roaming the streets with bottles of cider in hand, but its simply not true. Most children go about their business of growing up without too much fuss and gain some good qualifications along the way.

To suggest that Britain offers no alternative to binge drinking other than Christianity is frankly offensive.

1334. Do the laws of God trump those of man?

Comment #99548 by Peacebeuponme on December 17, 2007 at 3:17 am

Wooter

Though it looks for all the world as though you have approached your keyboard in much the same was as Jackson Pollack approaches a canvass, I think I get the sentiment of your post.

I don't think I need to answer, as it has been answered many times before. May I direct you to the "debate points" section of this website, where the specific claims about Mao, Stalin etc are answered, as well as a lot about religious moderates and morality

You may also wish to read God is Not Great for plenty of reasons why we specifically blame religion for many of society's problems.

1335. Ayaan Hirsi Ali versus Timothy Garton Ash

Comment #98785 by Peacebeuponme on December 14, 2007 at 10:10 am

I can bet you that if he debates an Islamist next, he'll be apologizing for saying he agreed with Ayaan in part. I would be willing to put money down on it. The reason Ayaan kicked his ass was because she couldn't find his balls to kick first - the guy doesn't have any.
Um, well he did actually call Mohammed an illeterate paedophile in the debate, so I'm not sure I entirely agree with that. It would be interesting too see what the next islamist he encounters says about that.

Half the problem with debating with Ayaan is that, once she has given her short life-history at the start, it kind of pulls the rug from under you. I think TGA did ok, and sounded like a fairly sensible guy, though I didn't agree with everything he had to say.

1336. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc. were atheists, and they were terrible! Answer that!

Comment #97466 by Peacebeuponme on December 12, 2007 at 6:27 am

Dr Benway

A published explanation of atheism with its own Library of Congress number could serve as a useful prop. Imagine: each time we're challenged with "Atheism leads to X" or "Atheists are nihilists," or "Hitler-Stalin-Mao," we can whip out the book, ruffle through the pages, and say, "Nope. I'm not finding what you're saying here."
Ok, you got me chuckling again, and this was the point we've made earlier on. The one problem is that when theists are challenged, they somehow manage to point to their books and do exactly the same: "Jihad is the inner struggle", "There is no Koranic justification for FGM", "Jesus said love your neighbor as yourself". Given the extreme interpretive licence they take, how should we respond to them?

1337. Believe it or not

Comment #97453 by Peacebeuponme on December 12, 2007 at 5:39 am

He has a point about the branding - atheist is a negative definition
No, its not negative. Antitheist is negative.

I gather a large portion of Americans see it as negative, but it isn't a negative definition.

1338. Christopher Hitchens appears on the Hugh Hewitt Radio Show

Comment #97447 by Peacebeuponme on December 12, 2007 at 5:18 am

Always been a bit uneasy with Hitchen's stance on Virginia Tech. He considers it a non-story because it "has no significance beyond itself". On the other hand, September 11 is supposed to be the pinnacle of importance and something to be mourned by all. Apart from sheer numbers of dead, I don't see the difference in how we should deal with them. We look at the causes, whether religion, gun laws or society in general and try to take action to stop recurrences.

As for newsworthiness, I think most Amercians would be glad that such shootings are still rare enough that they are reported.

1339. Is Infant Male Circumcision An Abuse Of The Rights Of The Child?

Comment #96945 by Peacebeuponme on December 11, 2007 at 6:22 am

dbuezas

Actually I'm very happy that I'm circumcised
I'm glad to hear that. It is however, irrelevant to the argument.

From the way you wrote your post, I'm assuming you made the choice to be circumcised (possibly for physiological reasons). No-one is arguing against that.

I'll keep saying it: surgical procedures on infants without the ability to make a free choice, unless out of necessity, are abuse.

1340. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #96916 by Peacebeuponme on December 11, 2007 at 5:03 am

naba

Can anyone help me, and think of an example of how one could perform an action 'in the name of atheism?'
This is what I posted before on the debates points page "Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc. were atheists, and they were terrible! Answer that!"
Please, put me out of my misery. Once again. If the Chinese authorities suppress Budddist monks or I get so angry at the stupity of religion that I snap and punch the local vicar in the face, why aren't these atheistic crimes?
Surely they are crimes linked to their religion and your intolerance of their religion and not to an "atheistic worldview"

Atheism says "There is probably no God" and nothing else. If you say "There is probably no God and I should physically assault the local vicar" that is going beyond atheism.

The difference with religious crimes is that the religious books specifically mandate certain outrages - you are not going beyond theism when you carry them out.
As Nighttripper says, there are no examples.

1341. This deadly religious resistance to vaccinations

Comment #96911 by Peacebeuponme on December 11, 2007 at 4:56 am

Once again Johann Hari writes sensibly on an important topic. I always enjoy his articles in the Indie.

1342. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #96840 by Peacebeuponme on December 11, 2007 at 2:07 am

I got as far as

atheistic ideology
As lots of you have said, there is no such thing. No need to waste time on the rest of it if that is level of his thinking.

1343. Is Infant Male Circumcision An Abuse Of The Rights Of The Child?

Comment #96275 by Peacebeuponme on December 10, 2007 at 9:14 am

pyota

I just don't understand why you are being so precious. If you don't want to debate, don't bother, but if you put an argument up on a website, people will respond. I put my side and am interested to hear others. The great thing is the amount of learning that can sometimes result.

Its disappointing that you cannot carry on the debate in a sensible fashion. I mean

whatever. as you can see, the use of the internet as a communication tool has been utterly lost here
what do you mean by that? That people disagree with you? Because if you did not like Theocrapy's mode of argument, you can always sidestep it and respond to others.

You haven't even attempted an argument in your last three posts, you've just complained, which leads me to believe you care a bit more than you make out. I guess the proof will be your lack of response to this.

Ultimately it looks like you've run out of arguments, but if there are good ones that oppose mine or lobdog's points, I would be genuinely interested in hearing them.

1344. Is Infant Male Circumcision An Abuse Of The Rights Of The Child?

Comment #96257 by Peacebeuponme on December 10, 2007 at 8:42 am

pyota

Nothing like a poster bowing out of the argument with a nice bit of ad hominem and trying to take the higher ground. What is it with the internet and folk getting as rattled as you have (while obviously trying to sound like you are above all this chat)?

Your example of someone who suffers from any one of your list of afflictions (and obviously I wouldn't go up and "try telling that" to them, in the same way that I wouldn't go up to someone with no legs and say "well most people can walk you know") does nothing to invalidate my argument. Statistics please. I would suggest that the unfortunates are in the extreme minority. They have my sympathy, but I don't wish to give them my child's foreskin.

1345. Is Infant Male Circumcision An Abuse Of The Rights Of The Child?

Comment #96251 by Peacebeuponme on December 10, 2007 at 8:30 am

Lobdog - exactly.

1346. Is Infant Male Circumcision An Abuse Of The Rights Of The Child?

Comment #96248 by Peacebeuponme on December 10, 2007 at 8:27 am

so by your logic, any medical treatment of infants is abuse because it cannot choose. please, give us all a break.
Its abuse if done without good reason (in which case I wouldn't call it "medical"). The millions and millions of men who life heathly lives with foreskins are testament that there is no good reason for a circumcision. Not having a one does not have serious medical cosequences in the way that say, a necessary heart operation has. So even if there are medical benefits, we should wait until the child is able to make the decision himself - we should not hack away unless we really need to.

Your cavity analogy does not work because they are not part of your body, but a defect that arises from your interaction with the environment. You would remove a boil or, more seriously a tumor, in the same way.

1347. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #96243 by Peacebeuponme on December 10, 2007 at 8:17 am

What about all the christian signs proclaiming that we are lost unless we find jesus? Are they attacking me as an atheist?

Fucking double standards from these blockheads.

1348. Is Infant Male Circumcision An Abuse Of The Rights Of The Child?

Comment #96240 by Peacebeuponme on December 10, 2007 at 8:13 am

pyota

why .. because i'm the only one here not proclaiming how much i love my foreskin?
What a facetious thing to say. How much do you love your earlobe, or your septum? Should we allow a knife to be taken to those?

It's not the point whether or not it really matters whether you have a foreskin or not, just whether or not you are able to decide what happens to your body.

1349. Is Infant Male Circumcision An Abuse Of The Rights Of The Child?

Comment #96238 by Peacebeuponme on December 10, 2007 at 8:06 am

pyota

male circumcision is a health operation with about as much 'trauma' as getting a tooth cavity filled. the health benefits are well attested to by the medical community. the fact that jews practice it as a religious ritual has nothing to do with its practice in the secular world.
As Jack Rawlinson says, red herring. If there are health benefits and you make an informed choice to have it done, then fine. Peforming the procedure on an infant who cannot choose is abuse.

The analogy with the tooth cavity is false, because without the procedure the child would lose teeth. I mean, if it was a choice of get it cut or it will drop off before you get to 5, then we would all get it done with our kids, but any upside is clearly nothing like that extreme.

1350. Is Infant Male Circumcision An Abuse Of The Rights Of The Child?

Comment #96147 by Peacebeuponme on December 10, 2007 at 4:10 am

TskidC

I find it amusing that discussion of the penis has created such a huge response compared to some of the other topics on this site.
This is only the 52nd post. Other topics have run into the thousands. I don't think its that unusual to have a flurry of posts when an article is first put up.

You think there would be a lower response rate if we were talking about a finger, or an ear?

More Pages: Previous | 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 | Next