ys wrote:There's just a few studies that didn't find anything really conclusive. In science this usually means that there's no real proof and most likely due to measuring errors (or biased researchers). The case of circumcision is one of those where some found a subtle advantage while others even found a slight disadvantage when it comes to diseases. Pretty typical of cases where there is no effect at all. And about cancer : as researchers said, just shower regularly and it's a non-issue.
As far as I know, the number of people in the EU getting these diseases aren't alarming when compared to the US. Actually, considering that many die worldwide during these rituals it's not clear to me if a claimed slight advantage would weigh up against these numbers.
Lies! The research has not been done because it cannot be done because it is wholly irrelevant today, since people have disinfectants and showers. Yet, we are talking about the ancient world, and the long term consequences of tradition. No male dies from a proper circumcision (and female "circumcision" is irrelevant, as it is not Scriptural), and considering that my people are not only still around, but rule the world against all odds, I'd say circumcision is ultimately a very good survival strategy indeed.
Those who lack imagination cannot grasp the long term effects of a tradition. Traditions transcend empires, and when empires fall, those with the best traditions will be ready to survive, while others will likely die out.
ys wrote:Saying that ancient tribes did things without knowing why is not really a plus in my eyes. They sacrificed people, they elongated heads, necks, shortened feet. None of which had any real benefit.
Circumcision is also prevalent in Anglosaxon countries in the West. Largely because of the influence of the Victorian era and its morals.
PS Why did god create it and ask to remove it? I guess being forgetful and asking mortals to correct the mistake afterwards is not it? Showing courage just seems an odd choice since suicide can take more courage but isn't allowed. The custom differs from country to country, era to era though. Which (to me) sounds more local and man made than divine.
Yes, go right ahead. Say "ancient tribes" because you think to belittle is to successfully dodge rational argument. Typical gentile tactic. Obviously, it's a plus because history unmistakably shows that circumcision happened to be a great idea at the time and place for which it was intended. Again, are you honestly suggesting that "ancient tribes" had soap and showers? For memetic and genetic longevity, those with even slightly healthy practices that are perhaps not necessary at all in a single lifetime, still provide long term benefits to the preponderance of their descendants.
Human sacrificers, head elongators, neck stretchers, feet shorteners, et al, have all died out. Still, they could come again. The Jewish culture remains. Mass murder and "aesthetic" deformation had no purpose. Circumcision cannot be seen publicly, nor does it hinder individual activity, so it is not at all equivalent to these other pagan practices.
ys wrote:Honest question : to each their own of course. I mean, people modify their bodies for several reasons. But if this is partly related to sexuality, why bother circumcising a child? Instead of letting adults choose later if they want to go through with this procedure?
Because it is not up to individuals to be whatever they want. To be born is to have a responsibility to carry on your family's heritage, and to have a child is not to merely babysit that child for his future self or the state. The child is an extension of his parents, and parents have not only the right, but the duty to raise the child how they want him to be. If they do not, someone else will. Hence, the alternative is enslavement to the will of the tyrant who legislates as if he were the father of all.
