San Francisco is considering a ban on circumcision. In support of this initiative, prepuce protectionists in the City by the Bay have published a comic book that may look eerily familiar to European immigrants of a certain age. It has attracted considerable attention, and rightly so.
Here.
53 Comments
In the comparison of Monster Mohel with De Eeuwige Jood, the noses are identical — strongly suggesting that the the image of Mohel has been copied directly from Jood!
Jeffery Hodges
* * *
Frankly, I find this astonishing in its brazenness. Imagine if the target were, say, blacks instead of Jews.
Large noses, even hooked ones, are not unknown, albeit nauseatingly stereotypical.
But evil teeth-baring grins are beyond the Pale, even for evil Jew-hating San Franciscans.
I spit on them.
At first I thought people were being thin skinned, but then I figured that this flap would go away in a week or two.
And it was published by a guy named Hess? You can’t make this stuff up.
If it “attracted considerable attention,” it was in the same sense as the Koran burning priest or Fred Phelps. It is widely condemned locally – as evidenced by the comments in sfgate – as racist and disgusting. The threshold to get on the ballot is very low, and we routinely get wacko propositions. However, it was so repugnant and outrageous that it attracted a lot of media attention, which turned a non-event into a faux event.
Well, without the murderous riots…
I’m ambivalent about rituals of sacrifice, generally, but when it’s bits of functional anatomy that are being sacrificed, I’m a lot less ambivalent. It really is a repugnant practice.
Too bad that somebody thought this might help to protect foreskins.
Apparently circumcision is helpful in preventing sexually transmitted diseases.
It also prepared me for a life of not paying retail. At eight days old, I already got ten percent off.
Peter – Yes, it does help to prevent some STDs. So does proper genital hygiene. Also, I’ve heard that amputating one’s feet is a very effective way to prevent toenail fungus.
My take on this is that when it’s medically indicated, snip away. But when it’s about sacrifice, then wait till the kid can choose for himself.
bk,
What is its presumed function?
It’s repugnant to you, apparently. But is that your qualification for the emphatic generalization of “really”? Are you being arrogant or just an asshole?
At around a week’s age, it is a trivial procedure. At the age of consent, presumably in the teens or later, it becomes very problematic and, therefore, rarely performed.
In any case, in a land where a woman can have an abortion on demand, during which it is reasonable to assume that a much more significant portion of an anatomy is “sacrificed”, your repugnance concerning baby-male circumcision (not female, which I concur is repugnant) is dubious.
I will embarrass our host further and remind him that as a youth, he described drumming as beating the four skins.
Pete, the Memorious.
Sort of like a roach motel.
Regrettably, what was once a lithe and supple mind is now senile and decrepit due to the ravages of middle age. It takes strenuous mental effort to remember where I parked my car at the mall.
Somehow I knew that TBH would be roused by my infelicitous comments. For the record, I am both arrogant and an asshole. But here’s the catch — I’m also right to see unconsented ritual mutilation as repugnant.
A highly innervated bit can pretty safey be assigned a sensory function.
BTW, aborting a fetus as a form of ritual sacrifice would, indeed, be repugnant. I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that some nutjob ideologue has actually done this. But I think it’s safe to say ritual sacrifice is not even close to being a prominent reason for abortion. So, TBH, if you want to argue analogically, get your analogies right.
BK’s latest reminds me of the claim made by my physics prof at the University of Chicago, who used to say he was anti-choice AND anti-life because he supported random, mandatory abortions. So, BK mutilation is fine by you as long as it isn’t part of a “ritual”?
You can add moron to your proud list of attributes, too.
The term “ritual mutilation” is your choice of characterization for a practice that in its biblical description was termed a covenant with God. In modern times it has been practiced world-wide by Jews, Muslims, Christians, and other peoples, as a routine medical procedure for a variety of motives and beliefs.
Not all people, of course, subscribe to the belief that it is either beneficial or desirable. That is why it is not an obligatory medical practice. No one is threatening to cut yours off, so you can stop pissing yourself about it, you schmuck.
barbro – It’s not the ritual aspect of the mutilation that I find repugnant so much as the unconsenting part. Where valid consent/assent is present, I’m merely ambivalent. I will happily debate the issue with the Lord God Almighty if you can arrange an appropriate venue.
TBH – I already said that I don’t object to medically indicated snipping (i.e., learn to read with comprehension…). So, regarding the non-medically indicated snipping: Is it not part of a ritual? Is it not mutilating? Is there some reason why ritual mutilation could not be part of a divine covenant? Of course, you are free to object to using plain language in plain ways. But if you do, then what am I to make of your referring to me as a moron and a schmuck. Coming from you, I thought I could safely treat these appellations (along with ‘arrogant’ and ‘asshole’) as high compliments — but now I’m not sure.
BK – So when you said that aborting a fetus as a form of ritual sacrifice would be repugnant to you, you meant that what you would actually find repugnant would be aborting a fetus without the consent of the fetus.
bk,
OK, I apologize for asking whether you are arrogant or an asshole. Even though I expected you to say you were “neither”, I shouldn’t have insinuated that you were either or both.
As for “moron” and “schmuck”, you are clearly neither. You express yourself well, so your IQ must exceed that of a moron. And, obviously, there is more to you than just a schmuck with a foreskin (unless you taught your schmuck to type).
So your repugnance appears to stem from “ritual” circumcision. Is that because you think that a mohel (a Jewish person trained in the practice of circumcision) is less adept than an MD who is not such a specialist? Would it surprise you to know that a mohel, through the sheer number of such precision circumcision, is more adept than the average surgeon?
BTW, those infantile circumcisions performed by surgeons is, in the vast majority of cases, not medically indicated as you insinuate; it is elected by the parents for the infant sons. They don’t need their sons permission to have his tonsils removed either.
barbro – Not quite, but please recall that I question the analogy TBH drew between abortion and ritual sacrifice. I don’t find abortion as such repugnant, but it can certainly become so if it’s done for repugnant reasons. And I’m having a hard time thinking of non-repugnant reasons that would find expression in ritualized abortion… to demonstrate one’s love/devotion/respect (the typical “reasons” for sacrifice) for what?
I have to agree with Henry here, which may cause him to rethink his position.
I don’t think the state has any business prohibiting a practice which has gone on for millenia, causes no harm, and is an essential part of two religions.
The local press reported an instance where one of the proponents of the proposition confronted a mohel, who asked her “do you have a problem with the way your husband turned out?” This ended the discussion.
TBH –
I’m well aware that circumcision has long been nearly “routine” in american medicine, despite the fact that it is generally not medically indicated. I did not insinuate otherwise (you seem to read things between the lines that arent’ there). And it’s not the religious ritual aspects of some circumcisions that I find repugnant — it’s the imposition on unconsenting infants.
BK – please recall that your first stated objection to circumcision was on the basis of it being a ritual of sacrifice (your words) involving a bit of functional anatomy. The abortion analogy, as I see it, shifted the focus from ritual of sacrifice to the absence of consent. In this analogy, the mapping goes as such.
Entity being mutilated without consent:
baby to be circumcised/fetus to be destroyed
Functional bit of anatomy being removed:
foreskin/entire body
So when you switched the focus back to ritual of sacrifice, you gave the impression that you either wanted to focus on the ritualistic aspect of circumcision or you didn’t quite understand the analogy.
While we are on the topic of analogies, let me see if I understand the mappings of your analogy regarding feet and toenail fungus.
Problematic part of anatomy:
foreskin/toenails
Part of anatomy to be removed:
foreskin/feet
This analogy doesn’t quite work because toenails are not to feet what a foreskin is to a foreskin. The correct analogical mapping, in this case, would be toenails are to feet what a foreskin is to a penis. So your analogy would work if the real-world event that you’re trying to model were removal of the penis.
Analogy is a very useful cognitive tool for understanding one event in terms of another as long as you get the mappings right. Otherwise, it’s not so cognitively useful.
bk,
Having received the unexpected support from a person with whom I have had a few disagreements in this arena, I am forced to acknowledge that I might be completely full of shit in this instance. Nevertheless, since I have only been wrong once in my whole life (back in 1976, when I thought I had made a mistake), I will assume that Peter is experiencing one of his middle-aged brain-farts.
That is very open-minded of you, bk, but virtually irrelevant to this whole discussion, given how rare such occasions are relative to the vast majority of circumcisions.
So it’s back to those obstinate and totally helpless un-consenting infants again? Under what circumstances can an infant either consent or un-consent to any of the things that are done in, on, into, over, under, to, at, by, for, or from him or her?
All – I must apologize for commenting and responding on the fly and somewhat telegraphically — perhaps that is why you draw “implications” from my comments that are not there.
Peter – The fact that I find something repugnant should never be taken as an indication that I think the state (or anybody else) should prohibit it.
barbro – Start with one’s interest in bodily integrity — a basic/fundamental interest if ever there was one. Abortion involves conflicts between the interests of two entities. A fetus (as a potential agent) has an interest in its bodily integrity, but I don’t think that interest trumps the parallel interest of a woman (an actual agent) who does not consent to her body being utilized by a fetus for temporary life support. Foreskins, unlike fetuses, have no interests, but those who possess them might have an interest in keeping them. And if that’s so, then unconsented snipping becomes morally problematic. While issues regarding consent and bodily integrity influence my views about both circumcision and abortion, how they map onto the two contexts is very different — I think sufficiently so to say the two cases are not analogous. (Also, you really botched the analogy between STDs/foreskins and toenail fungus/feet. The former are dysfunctional conditions made more probable by the presence of the latter.)
TBH – I made known my lack of objections to medically indicated procedures because Peter raised the issue of performing circumcisions to prevent STDs. So if you must cast blame for raising irrelevant issues, choose your targets with care. And regarding the general absence of consent from infants, that’s a very good reason not to violate their bodily integrity. Fortunately, many of the things done to infants without their consent are done to protect and promote their bodily integrity. But circumcision quite obviously is not one of these things (unless it’s medically indicated…).
bk,
I don’t think promoting bodily integrity, per se, is, nor should it be, the goal of most care given to infants, or anyone else, for that matter. The goal should be wellness.
I am not persuaded by any of your championing of an infant’s right to retain his foreskin until such time that its excision would become prohibitively problematic.
What makes you so confident that your contrarian view concerning circumcision’s effects on wellness is superior to the views of vast numbers of people, including medical doctors and humanitarians, for millennia?
I should probably note that last week, I told my fifteen year old daughter that she couldn’t get her nose pierced.
My liberalism ceases at personal inconvenience.
TBH – Where did I express any view about the effects of circumcision on wellness? What is wellness? The notion of bodily integrity is reasonably serviceable, and a fundamental interest in one’s own bodily integrity is pretty widely acknowledged in both law and ethics. So it seems like a reasonable way to approach the issue of circumcision. But frankly, it strikes me as unlikely that wellness would require unconsented circumcision.
The removal of a foreskin from an adult male is not pleasant, but it is hardly “prohibitively problematic.” It is, after all, sometimes a medically indicated procedure. And there are men who choose for aesthetic reasons, rather than medical reasons, to be circumsised (and more). I say, “Fine,” so long as everybody freely consents, etc., etc.
BK – Analogies usually work by selecting specific aspects to map, based on the purpose of the analogy, while ignoring other aspects of the events in question. The abortion analogy was introduced to demonstrate that lack of consent is not what you find so repugnant about circumcision. That is why the analogy focused on that aspect of the two events. At the time the analogy was made, you had given only two objections to circumcision–the ritual of sacrifice objection and the lack of consent objection. In that context, the analogy served its purpose. The validity of the analogy isn’t contradicted by any individual’s pro-choice, anti-life, pro-life, anti-choice point of view (points of view which, for what it’s worth, are not very interesting to me).
You’re still confused about the toenail fungus/feet to STD/foreskin mapping. Toenail fungus is not made more probable by the presence of feet. Toenail fungus is a nail fungus that lives in toenails. Imagine a person born with a defect whereby he has no toes and no toenails, but he has feet. This person will never have toenail fungi. Getting rid of the feet does nothing more to reduce the probability of a fungal toenail infection than getting rid of the toenails. Granted, cutting off both feet introduces a more visceral argument that would be missing in a more logical approach.
You didn’t use the word wellness; your obsession is with the notion of bodily integrity, as if that was synonymous with good health.
Are you against clipping your fungal toenails? How about a lobotomy? It might alleviate your compulsion for bodily integrity.
Wellness is a synonym for wellbeing. You might want to give it a try sometime.
bk,
I have a feeling you are not going to let this tedious thread go. So in the interest of giving everyone some respite, I will confess the real reason we Jews insist on circumcising our infant sons.
Their foreskins are the unique ingredient that make our unleavened bread Kosher for Passover.
TBH has helpfully clarified the signficance of Brit Milah — or maybe just reinforced the impression that he is unserious. So be it. Since I’m actually more interested with the quality of arguments than with intact foreskins, I’ll still address barbro’s comments regarding analogies…
If the abortion anaology was introduced “to demonstrate that lack of consent is not what [I] find so repugnant about circumcision,” then it pretty obviously failed, since that was not demonstrated. At the time the analogy was made (by TBH), I had not “given only two objections to circumcision—the ritual of sacrifice objection and the lack of consent objection.” If you bother to look, what I said is that I’m ambivalent about rituals of sacrifice, not that I object to them. My only stated objection concerned the lack of consent. Yes, I also mentioned functional anatomy; but that was because of the connection between the notion of functional anatomy and the notion of a fundamental interest in one’s own bodily integrity, which latter notion is central to traditional concerns with personal autonomy and consent. I didn’t spell all this out in excruciating detail (and still have not) because I hoped informed discussants would already be aware of this dialectic. And, regarding the validity of the analogy between abortion and circumcision, because the first case involves conflicts between the interests of two parties and the second does not, I cannot agree that “the analogy served its purpose.”
Finally, regarding the analogy I made between between STDs/foreskins and toenail fungus/feet, I happily concede that I could have made precisely the same point by substituting toes or toenails for feet. But you are clearly in error when you say “Toenail fungus is not made more probable by the presence of feet.” It is an empirical fact that toenail fungus is positively correlated with the presence of feet; and it is an empirical fact that some STDs are positively correlated with the presence of a foreskin. In other words, the analogy I made rests on easily verified facts about correlations.
As I said, I’m interested in the quality of arguments.
BK – try thinking about it this way. If you remove a person’s toenails, the probability of the person being infected by toenail fungi (which are microorganisms that live in toenails) is reduced to zero. Removing the person’s feet cannot possibly reduce that probability even further. According to your logic, you could have just as reasonably substituted the legs (or the lower half of the body or the entire body below the neck) for the feet as the target for the foreskin mapping, because removing any of these larger divisions of the anatomy would have the same effect on the probability of an infestation of toenail fungi as removing the feet, i.e., zero. So you introduced an unnecessary exaggeration into your analogy in order to create a more visceral effect. That’s not a reasonable move, it’s an emotional one; which is fine, emotional arguments often work; but you might benefit from realizing that the rhetorical device you’re using to make your point is exaggeration in an effort to engage the emotions and not analogy in an effort to engage reason.
The abortion analogy did serve its purpose because it forced you to clarify that you find circumcision repugnant because there is lack of consent coupled with no conflict of interest. But the latter part of that equation is a value judgment on your part. Questions regarding who is and who is not an agent, and whose interests trump the interests of others are still open questions that people resolve by resorting to belief systems rather than empirical facts. The abortion analogy clarified that you object to circumcision because it goes against your belief system.
The ellipsis is most telling. When placed at the end of a sentence, it can indicate a trailing off into silence. No such luck. Sigh.
Since it actually was the prelude to a quantity of arguments from our local master of minutiae (that’s you bk), I am most gratified to welcome a new (?) participant in the follies of engaging one who is so enamored with the sound and quantity of his blather.
Brace yourself, barbro. You appear to be quite capable of deciphering his twists and turns in attempting to squirm out of the petard of his own making, he will try your patience and your stamina for an obnoxious refusal to STFU.
barbro – Yes, the statistical relevance of legs, feet and toes to toenail fungus is screened-off (the technical term) by the presence of toenails. That does not negate the positive correlation on which my analogy was based, and your earlier remark about probability was, as I said, in error. Nonetheless, you are right that the exaggeration I introduced was unnecessary — the point of the analogy did not depend on the exaggeration. So yes, I engaged in rhetorical excess. Mea Culpa. But I did not, like you, assert a flat out falsehood. Since my concern is with the quality of arguments, I’ll note that rhetorical excess does not render an argument unsound; in contrast, a false premise does render an argument unsound.
The abortion analogy did induce me to clarify my reasons for viewing ritual circumcision of infants as a repugnant practice. But earlier you said the purpose of the analogy was to demonstrate that lack of consent was not what I found repugnant. It did not demonstrate that, as you have now acknowledged, albeit indirectly.
TBH – I’m sorry if my responding to your insults with reasoned arguments has left you feeling frustrated. That is, I’m sorry for you, you pitiable excuse for a human — not sorry for exposing your pitiable condition.
The analogous German is “Untermenschen“. You must have Anglicized your name from ScheiÁŸe-Kopf.
I make no excuse for my Jewish humanity, nor do I require your pity, you German piece of shit.
OK, you guys. I’ve been sitting on the sidelines here — I don’t have a god in this fight. But if this is what we’ve got to then I think it’s time to break it up.
“Their foreskins are the unique ingredient that make our unleavened bread Kosher for Passover.”
Except for the foreskin of Jesus, which Leo Allatius, in 1675, explained as having ascended into the heavens to become the ring of Saturn . . .
Jeffery Hodges
* * *
I’m sorry, Malcolm, for using your blog to insult TBH. But my insult was directed only to TBH, not Jews in general, a people I generally hold in high regard — including a few ancestors of this “German piece of shit”.
Not to worry. I think we can agree on the following:
1) The comic-book that was the original topic of this post is a startling display of anti-Semitism.
2) A consensus on the merits of circumcising male infants is no easy quarry, and currently eludes us.
Looks like our moderator feels that the participants are getting snippy.
Well, it seemed like the topic was causing a bit of a flap, so I decided to cut it off.
Apparently pictures of an aroused Anthony Wiener are now on the Internet. I can’t believe he won’t just resign. I guess he wants to stick it out.
He’s certainly going through some hard times here.
And it doesn’t look like any of the other members of Congress are rising to his defense…
Are the other members’ positions firm?
It seems so. But Weiner may hang in there; the guy’s got spunk.
I think Weiner will be gone in a day or two. If he can last more than 48 hours, he should seek immediate medical attention.
What a
schmuckdick.See today’s DBD Cartoon:
http://www.daybydaycartoon.com/2011/06/08/
He had spunk, but he handed it over at the office.
Then Pelosi quoted Mary Tyler Moore’s boss to him, “I hate spunk!”
His time has come.
BTW, Mal, I
stoleborrowed your donkey/cart pic (with attribution, of course) for my latest post:“A Beast of Burden and a Democrat“
Weiner couldn’t maintain wooden denials, and he’ll be hard up for a new job soon, but he’ll likely blow it again even if some job comes his way.
Jeffery Hodges
* * *
Pelosi is like a pair of men’s briefs — they’re both Weiner supporters.