Fingernails grow back...

You still haven't answered the tattoo question in a way that shows any consistency. I have already specified that I am referring a discrete tattoo that's not visible in almost every scenario (anything barring a beach, or swimming pool etc). Let me go further and specifically state that the tattoo says "I love Jesus" and is small, just above the belt line on the back.

Either you are OK with this or you think that this would cause "significant, identifiable harm". If it's the latter then can you explain why?

I also don't get the point about tattooing being rare so a smaller reduction in "freedoms". We are talking about the principle here, though it's interesting that you would perhaps change your stance if the number of parents who wanted their kids to have the snip reduced. If you think that that something is unfair to children I'd have thought that the more kids impacted the more important making a change was.

Worst post of the year?

Depends where you live. Where I live it's fairly unusual to be cut, and women are probably more likely to be repelled by someone cut than someone uncut. In any case, most women who haven't lived in a cave have sucked both kinds, and as far as I can tell, it's not a big deal for them one way or the other.

Honestly if there was a culture that tattooed their babies for thousands of years and were able to do so in a safe and hygienic fashion, I would say go ahead and ink that baby up.

And I generally trust the judicial system enough to figure out who is actually following a cultural tradition and who is just ****ing around.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...logical-damage

Really hard to buy any of that article

Well they do have many good articles at that site, not sure how to evaluate that one though.

This might be something:

https://www.researchgate.net/publica...t_circumcision

If you're against circumcising girls you should be against it for boys. Pure and simple.

Circumcision came as a means to keep people from enjoying sex and/or masturbation because doing so is 'dirty' or makes God cry or whatever. It's archaic and should be stopped.

But only the judicial system of the US at the arbitrary point of year 2018 and certainly not the judicial system of Iceland in 2019+ which is the catalyst of the thread, right?

Seems like a lock to me that people of the future will look back to this and lol at how barbaric people were, kinda like how we're now loling how we used to sacrifice animals or whatever. Yeah, you can debate how much harm is caused, but why are we talking about cutting dicks/slaying goats in the first place.

I believe this. My dad got circumcised as an adult for some reason and he whined and moaned for at least a month

Though I am personally strongly against circumcision, I don't think it should be legislated in to illegality.

I dont like the face tattoo analogy because its pretty close to the situation with Hindu girls and nose piercings.

Um, I explicitly addressed your made up example. Tattoos have significant social consequences, in particular related to how they are culturally interpreted as powerful symbols of individualism and identity, in a way that circumcision just don't. I don't consider them equivalent.

But it doesn't matter. Your line of questioning is a ridiculous whataboutism. I've challenged you to find something substantive harm for this act you oppose strongly enough to legally restrict religious freedoms on something done by 3/4s of americans. Instead of addressing that, you've concocted some fringe made up example and are demanding I meet your made up standards of consistency for that. It's just bad debating.

It is a question of net harm, and that depends on sample size. When you take an action the blocks the freedom of millions, but the harm you can identify is extremely inconsequential, then you fail the burden of proof.

Nonsense. Male circumcision is effectively a wash in terms of harmful consequences. Female circumcision* is not, the removal of the clitoris makes a pronounced difference in the ability of enjoy sex and is typically paired with a series of other harmful cultural practices. It is quite easy to put a dividing line between these.

*there is a procedure called pinprick female circumcision which arguably should be legal as it harmlessly replaces the farmful procedure with a symbolic pinprick. Particularly relevant in places like the horn of africa.

Your stance on the legality of male circumcision should align with your stance on the legality of burkas.

We are what a dozen different "what about _____" things ITT. There is no such demand here. While I think burkas should be legal, there is a much stronger argument for their causing harm than male circumcision

The amount of harm caused, while important, should not be the sole consideration. Circumcision obviously less reversible than Burkas.

This is painful to the extreme.

That last line para makes no sense on any level. A previous comment was something or other about more people doing it making is less likely that banning was reasonable. Either it is or it isn't a reasonable "freedom" at individual person level. The more people involved the more important it is to get right. This isn't assuming anything about the particular issue discussed and is more general, but is a simple point that you don't seem to get. If you had said that it should be banned in theory, but given how many would be against it it would be hard to push legislation though then that's a different issue - but instead you rely on some kind of fanciful logic that somehow it's more important to ban things that hardly anyone does.

Once again, for about the third time, you have failed to answer the tattoo question. Instead, you say:

"Tattoos have significant social consequences, in particular related to how they are culturally interpreted as powerful symbols of individualism and identity, in a way that circumcision just don't."

Given that we are talking about small tattoos that hardly anyone would see (and could easily be covered up anyway, if the "harm" was too great), I would totally dispute this. This is a million miles away from being "significant, identifiable harm".

Why don't you just admit that you are OK with parents tattooing their kids, at least with some criteria (over size and placement)? You wouldn't be alone in thinking this.

I suspect that many who would ban burkas where feasible (schools, public sector jobs - not sure what else you can do?) would also be for the circumcision ban - but we are talking about children here. Obviously if they want the snip when they are adults then they can go for it.

Your entire line of questioning is a pointless whataboutism. I asked you to identify some way in which circumcision has some significant net negative consequences. You failed to do that. What you did instead is concoct a hypothetical situation and stubbornly insist that no matter how many times I explain the difference, that I really must admit that I'm secretly supportive of it. Let's suppose you managed to win that argument - you didn't; you lost badly - that tattoos about jesus on your ass was a million miles away from having negative consequences on your future life or personal identity. So what? You still fail to identify the same for circumcision and thus have no argument as to why you should ban the free action of millions when there is no identifiable net harm. The structure of your argument is just bad.

Do you say the same for the thousands of things parents do to their children all the time that might have some marginal negative consequences? That it should all get banned and they can swim in backyward pools and drink sodas when they are adults?

Your entire line of questioning is a pointless whataboutism mr debating king.

How cute, but no. DTD has put most of his efforts ITT not to identifying any significant harm from circumcision, but to concocting a bizarre hypothetical and trying to force me to answer it the way he wants. This is very different from pointing out he likely doesn't apply his own standards on innumerable real world things all the time.

I'm assuming that adults can generally make reasonable decisions on their own.

If something is so dangerous that you have to take that choice away (like whether to take heroin) then you do this. If other things are bad but less so (eg unhealthy food) then adults generally have the choice to the extent that it only impacts on them. I'm putting circumcision in that class. Do you seriously not get that some things should be legal for adults to do but not children? I really can't see what point you are trying to make here.