Germany bans circumcision

[Hype]

In fact it's rarely the case that government programs involve going into your house and physically making you do or not do anything (except in cases where we all agree that doing or not doing something causes serious harm to others, e.g., Children's Aid Society removing children from a drug-den, or whatever.)

That's entirely untrue. The government dictates things as minor as how high your grass can be.

I would expect a progressive to expect the government to not allow needless mutiliation of a child.

You can call your end desire a progressive outcome, but that doesn't change the position itself from being conservative in nature.

Man I don't understand what's being said here... This reminds me of religious folk thinking 'atheist' means 'immoral'... As for "government dictates ... how high your grass can be", you're talking about something like this: http://dc.gov/DC/DCRA/About+DCRA/News+R ... fect+May+1 ?

You've skewed the claim already by implying it's government "dictatorship"... the actual policy involves the following explanation:

Tall grass can trigger respiratory problems like asthma and allergies in District residents and rats and other vermin are also drawn to the over-growth. This holds serious public health implications.

DCRA regulates several types of excessive vegetative growth including: kudzu, poison ivy, oak and sumac, plants with obnoxious odors, weeds, grasses causing hay fever, and any weed growth that creates a breeding place for mosquitoes. Regulations require that these weeds be cut after no more than seven days of growth.
Weeds may be defined as any vegetation at any state of maturity that:

Exceeds more than 10 inches in height, is untended, or creates a dense area of shrubbery that is a detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the public;
Creates a harbor (including hiding places for persons), or provides a place to conceal refuse or trash, regardless of height;
Develops into deposits, or accumulation of, refuse or trash;
Harbors rodents and vermin or provides a refuge for snakes, rats or other rodents;
Creates an unpleasant or noxious odor;
Constitutes a fire hazard; or
Contains grass or weeds that are dead and diseased.

It's not an infringement of freedom to be told not to make a city a shitty (i.e., actually harmful) place for everyone else.

As for circumcision, I've already explained my reasoning... consideration of minority rights in the implementation of responsible social policies is clearly a socially progressive view.

[Hokahey]

In fact it's rarely the case that government programs involve going into your house and physically making you do or not do anything (except in cases where we all agree that doing or not doing something causes serious harm to others, e.g., Children's Aid Society removing children from a drug-den, or whatever.)

That's entirely untrue. The government dictates things as minor as how high your grass can be.

I would expect a progressive to expect the government to not allow needless mutiliation of a child.

You can call your end desire a progressive outcome, but that doesn't change the position itself from being conservative in nature.

Man I don't understand what's being said here... This reminds me of religious folk thinking 'atheist' means 'immoral'... As for "government dictates ... how high your grass can be", you're talking about something like this: http://dc.gov/DC/DCRA/About+DCRA/News+R ... fect+May+1 ?

You've skewed the claim already by implying it's government "dictatorship"... the actual policy involves the following explanation:

Tall grass can trigger respiratory problems like asthma and allergies in District residents and rats and other vermin are also drawn to the over-growth. This holds serious public health implications.

DCRA regulates several types of excessive vegetative growth including: kudzu, poison ivy, oak and sumac, plants with obnoxious odors, weeds, grasses causing hay fever, and any weed growth that creates a breeding place for mosquitoes. Regulations require that these weeds be cut after no more than seven days of growth.
Weeds may be defined as any vegetation at any state of maturity that:

Exceeds more than 10 inches in height, is untended, or creates a dense area of shrubbery that is a detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the public;
Creates a harbor (including hiding places for persons), or provides a place to conceal refuse or trash, regardless of height;
Develops into deposits, or accumulation of, refuse or trash;
Harbors rodents and vermin or provides a refuge for snakes, rats or other rodents;
Creates an unpleasant or noxious odor;
Constitutes a fire hazard; or
Contains grass or weeds that are dead and diseased.

It's not an infringement of freedom to be told not to make a city a shitty (i.e., actually harmful) place for everyone else.

Such nonsense. They will come place a sign in your yard and fine you if your grass goes over 6 inches while there are publically owned grassy areas all over with higher grass. It's about maintaining appearances, but certainly they'll justify it as a "health risk".

As for circumcision, I've already explained my reasoning... consideration of minority rights in the implementation of responsible social policies is clearly a socially progressive view.

If a specific minoritys found corporal punishment to be the most effective method of disciplining their child, yet evidence shows spanking causes lower IQ's (which it does), would you support their right because they're a minority and should be able to make the choice?

A spanking is certainly less immediately harmful than a circumcision, and both are a choice that involves no immediate benefit to the child.

[Hype]

It's about maintaining appearances, but certainly they'll justify it as a "health risk".

You can say that... but there's no proof, and if that were the case, that's got nothing to do with progressivism or liberalism anyway.

If a specific minoritys found corporal punishment to be the most effective method of disciplining their child, yet evidence shows spanking causes lower IQ's (which it does), would you support their right because they're a minority and should be able to make the choice?

The issue in the case of ritual circumcision is that it's a pervasive cultural practice (i.e., a norm). The difference between my view and the view of a conservative is that the conservative, by definition, thinks that conserving norms/traditions/values is valuable in and of itself. I don't think that. And, in fact, I don't think circumcision is a particularly valuable thing to preserve. My argument is simply that in order to effectively create the best possible outcome, legislation has to be careful to take into account the "on-the-ground" facts about the people involved.

If spanking were a ritualized behaviour practiced by an entire sub-group of people who had faced persecution in the past, then the same argument holds: spanking isn't valuable in itself, and if there is evidence that it's detrimental, then fine, but the job of a government policy about it shouldn't be to drive it underground or create more harm than there was before. So the government ought to take the situation very seriously, and move cautiously to change how people think.

I'm not sure what's so problematic about this view or why it seems conservative -- I'm not justifying circumcision and I don't care whether people do it or not, but I do care how about unwitting xenophobia and racism, and I also care about whether we employ policies that get the causality of something right.

If it could be shown that banning would result in no long-term harm to minority individuals (including their children in secret rituals) then fine, I guess, but it doesn't seem like the best policy to get a desirable outcome.

[ellis]

That's a good answer.

I tend to simplify my stance on the issue of circumcision... the bottom line is that I do not believe I have a right to decide something like this for another human being. This seems to me to be a personal choice. Governments should not outlaw it. Many males like being circumcised! But the governemnt should definitely spread education about the topic to all of its citizens.

I can't even begin to tell you the arguments I've ALMOST had about this topic. I've even had friends say that the decline of circumcision is fueled by a leftist liberal agenda to destroy Christianity. Seriously. But none of them want to hear a word about why it got started in America. oooooooooh no. Leave that little secret alone!

[Hype]

I've even had friends say that the decline of circumcision is fueled by a leftist liberal agenda to destroy Christianity. Seriously. But none of them want to hear a word about why it got started in America. oooooooooh no. Leave that little secret alone!

That makes an amazing amount of no fucking sense at all. Most of the world's Christians are uncircumcised. Maybe they don't realize that there are Christians in Russia...

[Hokahey]

Well we agree Hype, and for very similar reasons. So I'll leave it at that. No need to debate the classification of the position.

[ellis]

You can't fix stupid, hype.

[Hype]

You can't fix stupid, hype.

... Yeah but have you ever known me to not TRY ANYWAY?

[JOEinPHX]

Dude... if you fuck a girl with AIDS... it doesn't matter whether you're circumcised or not. You're playin with fire.

For any HIV+ partner, if the ARV cocktail they're most likely on if they're in the West has reduced the viral load the way it's supposed to, it's nearly impossible to be infected. In fact, they changed the law that says that HIV+ people must disclose their status to sexual partners for those whose viral load is undetectable.

haha, load.

[LJF]

Sorry I haven't read all of the posts and this is off topic to some degree. One of my biggest concerns with what is happening today is people are getting so caught up in if that view is conservative, liberal or whatever. Just because you call yourself conservative or liberal doesn't mean all of your views/opinions have to always fall in that label. People need to stop being trapped by the label that is placed on them. Say what you feel and fuck the rest.

I have met very few people you have only one type of view on all subjects. If people got past these labels then I feel it allows them to have a more real discussion. If you label yourself don't you shut yourself off from trying to be unbiased. I know everyone is biased to some degree, but if you only want to see things one way, then you are missing a lot.

[Hype]

Sorry I haven't read all of the posts and this is off topic to some degree. One of my biggest concerns with what is happening today is people are getting so caught up in if that view is conservative, liberal or whatever. Just because you call yourself conservative or liberal doesn't mean all of your views/opinions have to always fall in that label. People need to stop being trapped by the label that is placed on them. Say what you feel and fuck the rest.

I have met very few people you have only one type of view on all subjects. If people got past these labels then I feel it allows them to have a more real discussion. If you label yourself don't you shut yourself off from trying to be unbiased. I know everyone is biased to some degree, but if you only want to see things one way, then you are missing a lot.

People should stop saying what they 'feel' and take a moment to think about what they actually know, and what that knowledge implies they ought to think is true.

[blackcoffee]

I love my foreskin. So does my wife.

Circumcised men hate to admit that their sensation is at all impacted by the fact that their penis head has been rubbing against cotton all their lives.

Ellis makes a good point not necessarily demonstable by science or studies that hygiene is a factor in uncircumcised men having higher std risk.