South Africa Flag logo

South African Skeptics

July 09, 2020, 17:14:18 PM
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
Go to mobile page.
News: Please read the posting guidelines before posting.
   
   Skeptic Forum Board Index   Help Forum Rules Search GoogleTagged Login Register Chat Blogroll  
Pages: 1 2 [All]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic:

A not-so-happy day for....

 (Read 8852 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Faerie
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +10/-2
Offline Offline

Posts: 2128



« on: January 21, 2011, 08:49:30 AM »

for once the headlines speaks the truth - go have a peek at these pics:

http://www.iol.co.za/news/back-page/a-not-so-happy-day-for-1.1014742?image=5

Logged
cyghost
Skeptically yours
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +12/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 1421


Carpe diem


« Reply #1 on: January 21, 2011, 08:56:27 AM »

looks quit traumatic - but that may just be me and my biases
Logged
GCG
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +8/-4
Offline Offline

Posts: 1829


skeptical mantis is skeptical


adele horn
WWW
« Reply #2 on: January 21, 2011, 09:09:23 AM »

imagine the poor jewish babies having their foreskins lopped off.  eina.
Logged
StevoMuso
Stevo Muso
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +4/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 654



« Reply #3 on: January 21, 2011, 09:41:37 AM »

imagine the poor jewish babies having their foreskins lopped off.  eina.
I tried phoning my Rabbi the other day but kept getting cut off.
Logged
GCG
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +8/-4
Offline Offline

Posts: 1829


skeptical mantis is skeptical


adele horn
WWW
« Reply #4 on: January 21, 2011, 09:57:26 AM »

he he he he   Grin
Logged
murraybiscuit
Newbie
*

Skeptical ability: +0/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 12



« Reply #5 on: January 21, 2011, 10:07:21 AM »

in the parent's eyes this is tantamount to immunisation against mortality of the soul. if that makes any sense.
what i'm saying is that babies will cry over anything which doesn't involve crawling back into the womb or sucking on a tit.
bathtime being no exception.

i can't really see grounds for moral outrage over the physical act of infant baptism here, more than a suggestion to warm the water.
if the issue is over ideology or theology, so be it. the emotive nature of this image doesn't really add much to that debate.

we subject babies to much worse by injecting them against their wills.
you could argue that immunisation can be proven to benefit the baby.
but you'd have to prove that infant baptism inherently harms the baby.
Logged
st0nes
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +10/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 942



mark.widdicombe1
WWW
« Reply #6 on: January 21, 2011, 12:33:25 PM »

He's just pissed because he took a huge breath to blow out that candle, but the pillock with the water put it out before he had a chance.
Logged
GCG
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +8/-4
Offline Offline

Posts: 1829


skeptical mantis is skeptical


adele horn
WWW
« Reply #7 on: January 21, 2011, 13:14:27 PM »

i was christened at 17, and still wanted to scream blue bloody murder
Logged
cyghost
Skeptically yours
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +12/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 1421


Carpe diem


« Reply #8 on: January 21, 2011, 14:10:13 PM »

I don't know if there is a moral outrage as such and I can certainly agree that this doesn't do any "real" harm per se.

My primary objection would be that it leads to other bullshit if *any* of this crap is allowed...

"No harm, we just protect his soul by dowsing him in water"

"No real harm, God just want a piece of the boy's penis as token of devotion"

"No immortal harm, we'll just fly into these buildings and God will take care of the souls as he sees fit but we'll get some virgins"

A slippery slope and my objection to real harm done compels me to speak out against baptism and mass and whatever these people do in the name of their religion. I won't stop people from going to church or baptizing their children, but I'll be sure to tell them how absolutely ridiculous they are being.
Logged
murraybiscuit
Newbie
*

Skeptical ability: +0/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 12



« Reply #9 on: January 21, 2011, 14:34:05 PM »

My primary objection would be that it leads to other bullshit if *any* of this crap is allowed...
/snip

sure. point taken.
i think raising kids is a really hard one.
especially when there's differences of opinion between spouses.
that's going to be my problem  Sad
Logged
cyghost
Skeptically yours
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +12/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 1421


Carpe diem


« Reply #10 on: January 21, 2011, 14:40:23 PM »

good luck  Wink


ironically I recently had a baby and my wife, a Korean deist, asks me if we should baptize our son...  Shocked  truly wtf, reason given, Pascal's Wager in so many words.  Roll Eyes LoL

I said no, I'll take his punishment on me and if he wants to be baptized or snipped (she already knew my feelings on that and hasn't even suggested it) or whatever, he can do that at age 18 after years of indoctrination from me in anti-magical thinking  Evil
Logged
Faerie
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +10/-2
Offline Offline

Posts: 2128



« Reply #11 on: January 21, 2011, 15:13:56 PM »

My primary objection would be that it leads to other bullshit if *any* of this crap is allowed...
/snip

sure. point taken.
i think raising kids is a really hard one.
especially when there's differences of opinion between spouses.
that's going to be my problem  Sad

Eish.... good luck.... when my kids father started with the Sunday school thing, I agreed on condition that they are allowed to go to a different church every week, if he wanted to expose them to the rubbish, then he was damn well going to expose them to ALL of it. They even went to Madrasah for a week. It cured them from religion forever and it only took about 3 months to filter them through just about every conceivable religious institution I could find in the area. It also cured the ex of his stupid ideas on spiritual responsibility.
Logged
GCG
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +8/-4
Offline Offline

Posts: 1829


skeptical mantis is skeptical


adele horn
WWW
« Reply #12 on: January 21, 2011, 15:38:45 PM »

"No real harm, God just want a piece of the boy's penis as token of devotion"

and does the child have a say in this whole schpiel?
if it's a case of devotion, then the kid can have his own dongle lopped off, when he is good and ready to devote his man-bits to god.

in this case, it's rather a case of lopping the kids bits off to show the parent's devotion.
isnt that torture then?

sure, sure, being circumnavigated is supposedly healthy and whatnot, but surely the kid get's to decide what his pecker will look like.
having been exposed to both ends (ahem) of the spectrum, i say, chop the little bugger, but only if, as an adult-ish lad, he can decide so for himself.
Logged
Brian
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +8/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 1367


I think therefor I am, I think


« Reply #13 on: January 21, 2011, 16:31:17 PM »

If I understand the ritual of baptism correctly it has buggerall to do with the baby's soul, but is a re-affirmation by the parents of their devotion to God and a promise before witnesses to bring the little soul up in the bosom of their particular version of the deity and its rigmarole.

Concerning the snip: I was snipped at 3 due to medical issues and it was fucking sore! I can still remember trying to pee and screaming in pain...my earliest childhood recollection! My eldest son, same thing! Then when the next son was born I said bugger this, its more hygienic, easier to clean etc etc (and now we hear it inhibits STD's) so why the bullshit of not snipping? My latest grandson born on Wednesday is not allowed to be snipped although both parents fully support it (there's the so-called psychological issue that the son should look similar to his father in the nether regions as well)....No No No the Dr says. the child must decide when old enough (now its a major issue and painful) but if you're Muslim or Jewish its OK? For F sake...the religious get to do it but we cannot....I totally fucking reject that! I hear that the legislation was pushed through to prohibit this "mutilation' of a baby by vested interests...enough said as I'm not homophobic at all. Angry
Logged
cyghost
Skeptically yours
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +12/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 1421


Carpe diem


« Reply #14 on: January 21, 2011, 16:52:10 PM »

<snip - pardon the pun>so why the bullshit of not snipping?
The InterWeb is your friend. Or we can take it to a separate thread, it deserves such really.

Needless to say, not snipped, never had a single problem and the idea that it is somehow *more* hygienic is laughable. Barring a valid medical reason, this barbaric practice needs to stop.
Logged
Brian
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +8/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 1367


I think therefor I am, I think


« Reply #15 on: January 21, 2011, 18:01:36 PM »

<snip - pardon the pun>so why the bullshit of not snipping?

The InterWeb is your friend. Or we can take it to a separate thread, it deserves such really.

Needless to say, not snipped, never had a single problem and the idea that it is somehow *more* hygienic is laughable. Barring a valid medical reason, this barbaric practice needs to stop.

Obviously your experiences and mine differ and that's cool. However,
Quote
the idea that it is somehow *more* hygienic is laughable.
is seemingly not so laughable: read here: http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Circumcision/Pages/Why-is-it-necessary.aspx
and this:  http://www.mrc.ac.za/public/facts19.htm
Quote
What has led to the current debate on male circumcision?
The current debate was instigated by mainly three observational studies that have been done in Sub-Saharan Africa. These three studies were conducted to determine the influence of circumcised men (as opposed to uncircumcised men) on HIV-infection. The findings of the three studies were as follows10:

Observational study

Researchers & Date

Main result of the study

South Africa (Orange Farm): Randomized, Controlled Intervention Trial of Male Circumcision for Reduction of HIV Infection Risk: The ANRS 1265 Trial.

Auvert B, Taljaard D, Lagarde E, Sobngwi-Tambekou J, Sitta R, Puren A.
Date: November 2005. The trail lasted for 2 years.

The results of the Orange Farm trial suggested that the risk of HIV infection was reduced by 60% in circumcised men.

Uganda: Trial of Male Circumcision: HIV, STD and Behavioural Effects in Men, Women and the Community.

Serwadda D, Wawer M, Gray R.
Date: 2006

Adult male circumcision reduced the risk of acquiring HIV-infection by 48 percent.

Kenya: Trial of Male Circumcision to Reduce HIV Incidence.

Bailey R, Moses S, Maclean I, Parker C, Ndinya-Achola JO, Agot K, Krieger J.
Date: 2006

Adult male circumcision reduced the risk of acquiring HIV-infection by 53 percent.

What are the consequences of these results?
Brian Williams et al, designed a simulation model, based on the abovementioned trials, to predict the impact of male circumcision on the relative prevalence of HIV in men and women11. They concluded, “Assuming that full coverage of male circumcision is achieved over the next ten years, male circumcision could avert 2 million new HIV-infections and 0.3 million deaths. In the 10 years after that, it could avert a further 3.7 million new infections and 2.7 million deaths”12.

One must remember that male circumcision is only partially effective in HIV-positive female transmission to HIV-negative circumcised males.

By now the obvious benefits of male circumcision should be clear: it can indeed lessen the transmission of HIV. There are, as always, some conditions. Dr Catherine Hankins, chief scientific adviser to UNAIDS, gives valuable insight into possible problem areas with regard to male circumcision13.

Since adult circumcision has a higher risk of adverse effect, one must propagate infant male circumcision;
This procedure should always be undertaken by trained health workers in safe, adequately equipped facilities,  under sanitary conditions and further enhanced by appropriate pre and post-surgical counselling and follow-up;
Cultural, religious and traditional values will always play a part and one will have to take these into account;
male circumcision for adults should be done with consent; otherwise it becomes a violation of that person’s human rights. In the case of a child, the parents or legal guardian should give consent; and
male circumcision has shortcomings:
It applies only to female-to-male transmission;
It is not 100% safe and should be treated as an additional preventative measure; and
Other known methods, such as abstinence, limitation to one sexual partner and the use of condoms, are still to be advocated.


Whether it is indeed barbaric or not, or infringes the rights of a child seem to depend on the morals (another thread?) of a particular society (relativism, indeed!  Huh?), as it is seen to be a norm in many for either manhood rites (Xhosas) or religious considerations. Between 60 and 66% of boys are circumcised in the US and while this does not constitute an argument for its retention as a procedure, it is a societal norm. Apparently in Sweden only 3% of boys are circumcised.

I have no doubt that the religious justification (which I reject by the way), stems from hygiene issues (lack of water in the deserts of the Jews and Arabs)in any case.
I object to the discrimination that I am not allowed to have it done, and those who pray to some mythical entity, can!
Logged
cyghost
Skeptically yours
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +12/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 1421


Carpe diem


« Reply #16 on: January 23, 2011, 10:41:54 AM »

Obviously your experiences and mine differ and that's cool.

Obviously
Quote
However,
Quote
the idea that it is somehow *more* hygienic is laughable.
is seemingly not so laughable: read here: http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Circumcision/Pages/Why-is-it-necessary.aspx
and this:  http://www.mrc.ac.za/public/facts19.htm

What has that to do with hygiene??


Two things though - this and here

Quote from: some of the studies that disagree
Mishra et al. (2006) used data collected from the Demographic and Health Surveys and found that HIV prevalence was "considerably higher in urban areas and for women, especially at younger ages. Adults in wealthier households, in polygamous unions, being widowed/divorced/separated, having multiple sex partners, and having reported STIs had higher HIV rates than other adults. No consistent relationship between male circumcision and HIV risk was observed in most countries."[55]

Way et al. (2006) also used data from Demographic and Health Surveys in Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Ghana, Kenya, Lesotho, and Malawi and from AIDS Indicator Surveys in Tanzania and Uganda to conduct his study. They found that "With age, education, wealth status, and a number of sexual and other behavioral risk factors controlled statistically, in only one of the eight countries were circumcised men at a significant advantage. In the other seven countries, the association between circumcision and HIV status was not statistically significant for the male population as a whole."[56]

Garenne (2006) has doubts about circumcision's value in reducing HIV,[57] and Talbott (2007), in a controversial paper[58] stated that cross country regression data pointed to prostitution as the key factor in the AIDS epidemic rather than circumcision.[59] World Health Organization AIDS Prevention Team official Tim Farley disagreed with the findings of the paper, while Chris Surridge, PLoS One's managing editor, defended its publication.[60] In 1999 the American Medical Association had stated, "behavioral factors are far more important in preventing these infections than the presence or absence of a foreskin."[61]

If proper hygienic procedures are not adhered to, the circumcision operation itself can spread HIV. Brewer et al. (2007)[62] report, "[circumcised] male and female virgins were substantially more likely to be HIV infected than uncircumcised virgins. Among adolescents, regardless of sexual experience, circumcision was just as strongly associated with prevalent HIV infection. However, uncircumcised adults were more likely to be HIV positive than circumcised adults." They concluded: "HIV transmission may occur through circumcision-related blood exposures in eastern and southern Africa."

Van Howe et al. criticise the drive to promote circumcision in Africa, asking "Why are circumcision proponents expending so much time and energy promoting mass circumcision to North Americans when their supposed aim is to prevent HIV in Africa? The circumcision rate is declining in the US, especially on the west coast; the two North American national paediatric organisations have elected not to endorse the practice, and the practice’s legality has been questioned in both the medical and legal literature. ‘Playing the HIV card’ misdirects the fear understandably generated in North Americans by the HIV/AIDS pandemic into a concrete action: the perpetuation of the outdated practice of neonatal circumcision."[63]

Connolly et al. (2008) found that "circumcision had no protective effect in the prevention of HIV transmission. This is a concern, and has implications for the possible adoption of the mass male circumcision strategy both as a public health policy and an HIV prevention strategy."[64]

Sidler et al. (2008) say that using neonatal non-therapeutic circumcision to combat the HIV crisis in Africa is neither medically nor ethically justifiable. Furthermore, promoting circumcision might worsen the problem by creating a false sense of security and therefore undermining safe sex practices. Education, female economic independence, safe sex practices and consistent condom use are proven effective measures against HIV transmission.[65]

Boiley et al. (2008) found that the protection of circumcision against STI contributes little to the overall effect of circumcision on HIV.[66]

And number two

The whole HIV argument is a red herring

The argument is not against sane (??) adult men making an informed decision for themselves at the right time but against maiming babies who has no such ability. Babies and children don’t go around having sex with various  partners which would expose them to this risk.

And just a third thing, what the hell, if anyone thinks that being circumcised is a license to screw around as they please without a care in the world, they are surely in for a rude surprise. You will get HIV, circumcised or not. So it is really a bullshit argument through and through.
Quote
Whether it is indeed barbaric or not, or infringes the rights of a child seem to depend on the morals (another thread?) of a particular society (relativism, indeed!  Huh?), as it is seen to be a norm in many for either manhood rites (Xhosas) or religious considerations. Between 60 and 66% of boys are circumcised in the US and while this does not constitute an argument for its retention as a procedure, it is a societal norm. Apparently in Sweden only 3% of boys are circumcised.

It does unnecessary harm with little to no benefit. My definition of immoral. And it does so to helpless, uninformed babies. My definition of barbaric.
Quote
I have no doubt that the religious justification (which I reject by the way), stems from hygiene issues (lack of water in the deserts of the Jews and Arabs)in any case.
I object to the discrimination that I am not allowed to have it done, and those who pray to some mythical entity, can!

Agreed. It shouldn't be allowed at all except for valid medical reasons.
Logged
st0nes
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +10/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 942



mark.widdicombe1
WWW
« Reply #17 on: January 24, 2011, 06:41:53 AM »

Nobody asked my permission before hacking off the tip of my prick, and I feel some resentment about that.  There can be no excuse for the deliberate mutilation of a child.
Logged
murraybiscuit
Newbie
*

Skeptical ability: +0/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 12



« Reply #18 on: January 24, 2011, 16:56:16 PM »

yeah. the penn & teller episode pretty much sums it up.
Logged
murraybiscuit
Newbie
*

Skeptical ability: +0/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 12



« Reply #19 on: January 24, 2011, 17:07:42 PM »

back to the o.p. though, some friends from finland made a comment yesterday about christening their godson a few months back.
they were shocked to learn that south africans regularly attend church on sundays.
honestly, if you're just going to adopt religion for birth, marriage and death, what the hell is the point?
that just pisses me off.
Logged
GCG
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +8/-4
Offline Offline

Posts: 1829


skeptical mantis is skeptical


adele horn
WWW
« Reply #20 on: January 24, 2011, 17:41:32 PM »

well, your parents decide what religion you will be at birth.  to get married, it's damn hard to find a non-denominational officer, or they are kak-expensive, believe me, i've tried, or you have to do it court, which sucks.  so it often turns out to be cheaper and less of a headache to just get your dominee (or your mother's) to just tie the knot.
when you die, unless you stipulate otherwise, your family will have you cremated/buried in whatever way they see fit. 

allso, i think, for the sake of keeping your parents, neighbours, colleagues, boss (lilli and faerie), quiet and off your case, its easier to just belong to something. even if you dont believe in it.
i have found, when im not in the mood to fight the woo, i will just say im 'spiritual'.  then they cant berate you for being completely faithless, and they think that god is still in your heart, and you will eventually find your way back to the church.

so yeah, if the company neccitated it, i would be a birth, marriage and death religionist.

maybe, the older countries, religion is more of a tradition, than an actual belief system? 
Logged
st0nes
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +10/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 942



mark.widdicombe1
WWW
« Reply #21 on: January 25, 2011, 06:59:00 AM »

...it's damn hard to find a non-denominational officer...
I see in the states they have a thing called a 'secular celebrant' who is a sort of non-religious dominee who can marry you, bury you (provided you're dead) and do all the other stuff (I can't think offhand what that would be) that needs doing without any of the religious crap you have to have otherwise.  Do we have something similar here?  And if not, why not?
Logged
GCG
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +8/-4
Offline Offline

Posts: 1829


skeptical mantis is skeptical


adele horn
WWW
« Reply #22 on: January 25, 2011, 13:39:43 PM »

you do find marriage officers, but since they are few and far between, they are kak expensive, and near impossible to book.

a friend of mine had toyed with the idea of becoming one, but the red tape is miles long, and it basically comes down to registering with home affairs, and it may take however long they wish, and your papers get lost,.... the usual, and then it ends in either you giving up, or just bribing someone.   as a dominee, you automatically get registered when you pass your woo-exam.
Logged
BoogieMonster
NP complete
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +19/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 3230



« Reply #23 on: January 25, 2011, 18:02:35 PM »

This is Africa people, you don't work with the system, you bend it until it does your bidding.

How does one then register an official Church of the FSM, which can then ordain officials as it sees fit. (aka "everyone who applies")
Logged
Faerie
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +10/-2
Offline Offline

Posts: 2128



« Reply #24 on: January 26, 2011, 07:38:52 AM »

was musing last night, its illigal in this country to dock a dog's tail.... doesnt really make sense does it now?
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [All]   Go Up
  Print  


 
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC
Page created in 0.953 seconds with 23 sceptic queries.
Google visited last this page July 30, 2018, 02:54:14 AM
Privacy Policy