That was actually quite funny !hoi.polloi wrote: Don't be so "jumpy" man!
) himself, ended up being considered anti-semitic and had to seek asylum in Iceland.No surprise the UNICEF/WHO is whitewashing circumcision.jumpy64 wrote:"Circumcising infant boys is a relatively straightforward procedure and if properly carried out, complications are very rare [UNICEF]."
The foreskin also acts as a mechanical lubricant during sex. The penis is not designed to slide in and out of a woman, but in and out of its own skin during sex. Without a foreskin, a man has to build friction to feel pleasure.
- David Richards (on Makow).
Good points, thank you. In fact, I read the article you hint to, and I found it very interesting in its entirety, including the links at the end.Flabbergasted wrote: No surprise the UNICEF/WHO is whitewashing circumcision.
To properly address this topic requires an understanding of what rituals and sacraments are, in Judaism and elsewhere, why they exist and what they effect (or do not effect).
The only point I want to make here is that, despite lack of personal experience in this regard, it may be safely affirmed that circumcision causes a significant loss of sensitivity in the glans (which has to be made up for some other way).
The foreskin also acts as a mechanical lubricant during sex. The penis is not designed to slide in and out of a woman, but in and out of its own skin during sex. Without a foreskin, a man has to build friction to feel pleasure.
- David Richards (on Makow).
I definitely recommend making the subject relevant to your thread by actually researching this.I also remember reading something about traumas (and especially early ones) making people more susceptible to mental conditioning/programming, but I haven't researched this yet, so take it with a grain of salt.
No, Hoi - everyone is the master of their own beliefs - and concerns. Here on this forum, we mostly air our concerns about the problems of this mad world we live in. As it is, what we mostly deal with here are concerns - not beliefs.hoipolloi wrote:"Are we going to tell people how to believe?"
So far, I have seen no hate whatsoever here - what on Earth are you on about? And didn't you say it would be a cowardly move to close this thread? I, for one ( and FWIW) will not allow it. This thread has every right to exist - and is certainly a part of my urgent concerns regarding this fucked up planet.hoipolloi wrote:"And I am sorry but if this does not progress from a familiar hate blog, I will advocate for this thread to be closed like our other failed religious discussion that went nowhere."
Maybe this can help: Traumatic experiences in childhood and psychopathy: a study on a sample of violent offenders from Italyhoi.polloi wrote:I definitely recommend making the subject relevant to your thread by actually researching this.I also remember reading something about traumas (and especially early ones) making people more susceptible to mental conditioning/programming, but I haven't researched this yet, so take it with a grain of salt.
I don't want to jump to conclusions. I am not saying that circumcised people are more inclined to be psychopatic than others. We have to ask: can circumcision be experienced as a relational trauma by the child? I would argue that in some cases this is possible. The child obviously can feel betrayed by the parents because they don't protect him .Results
There was a high prevalence of childhood experiences of neglect and abuse among the offenders. Higher levels of childhood relational trauma were found among participants who obtained high scores on the PCL-R. There was also a significant negative association between age of first relational trauma and psychopathy scores.
Edit: underlined more of the quotesCircumcision trauma
A traumatic experience is defined in DSM-IV as the direct consequence of experiencing or witnessing of serious injury or threat to physical integrity that produces intense fear, helplessness or (in the case of children) agitation (American Psychiatric Association, 1994). The significant pain and distress described earlier is consistent with this definition. Moreover, the disturbance (e.g., physiological arousal, avoidant behaviour) qualifies for a diagnosis of acute stress disorder if it lasts at least two days or even a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) if it lasts more than a month. Circumcision without anaesthesia constitutes a severely traumatic event in a child's life (Lander, Brady-Freyer, Metcalfe, Nazerali, & Muttit, 1997; Ramos & Boyle, 2001; Taddio, Katz, Ilersich, & Koren, 1997). It is possible that the trauma of genital surgery might have long-lasting psychological effects (Bigelow, 1995; Levy, 1945; Jacobson & Bygdeman, 1998; Anand & Scalzo, 2000).
Van Howe (1996, p. 431) reported that, "Newborn males respond to circumcision with a marked reduction in oxygenation during the procedure, a cortisol surge, decreased wakefulness, increased vagal tone, and less interactions with their environment following the procedure..." Rhinehart (1999) in a report of clinical cases noted that the only response available to the infant is shock, wherein the central nervous system is overwhelmed by pain, followed by numbing, paralysis, and dissociation. Possibly, dissociation of the traumatic experience and emotional pain may be employed by the infant as a psychological defence (Chu & Dill, 1990; Noyes, 1977; Rhinehart, 1999). While some babies have been described as being "quiet" after circumcision, Rhinehart concluded that the observed stillness most likely represents a state of dissociation or shock in response to the overwhelming pain.
Consistent with the early reports of Anna Freud (1952), McFadyen (1998) observed psychological trauma in her son following circumcision. This is sometimes extreme enough to impede the maternal-infant bonding (Marshall et al., 1982; Van Howe, 1996). As reasoned by Herman (1992) and Rhinehart (1999) the common factor underlying circumcision trauma is an experience of violence and powerlessness--inflicted by other human beings. Such an event was described in a study of 12 Turkish boys circumcised in late childhood. Cansever (1965, p. 328) reported that "Circumcision is perceived by the child as an aggressive attack upon his body, which damaged, mutilated, and, in some cases, totally destroyed him." Ritual circumcision appeared to be associated with increased aggressiveness, weakening of the ego, withdrawal, reduced functioning and adaptation, and nightmares consistent with PTSD.
Ramos and Boyle (2001) investigated the psychological effects associated with medical and ritual "operation tuli" circumcision procedures in the Philippines. Some 1577 boys aged 11 to 16 years (1072 boys circumcised under medical procedures; 505 subjected to ritual circumcision) were surveyed to see if genital cutting led to the development of PTSD. Interestingly, Mezey and Robbins (2001) estimated the incidence of PTSD as 1.0% to 7.8% in the general British population where circumcision is not very prevalent. On the other hand, using the PTSD-I questionnaire (Watson et al., 1991) in a predominantly circumcised population, Ramos and Boyle observed an incidence of PTSD of almost 70% among boys subjected to ritual circumcision, and 51% among boys subjected to medical circumcision (with local anaesthetic). Long-term follow-up would be needed to gauge the extent to which PTSD persists over the lifespan of these circumcised boys.
The outcome of painful childhood trauma includes long-lasting neurophysiological and neurochemical brain changes (Anand & Carr, 1989; Anand & Scalzo, 2000; Ciaranello, 1983; Taddio et al., 1997; van der Kolk & Saporta, 1991). Richards, Bernal, and Brackbill (1976) found that circumcision may impact adversely on the developing brain, and that reported "gender differences" may actually arise from behavioural changes induced by infant or childhood circumcision.
Rhinehart (1999) in a report of adult clinical cases concluded that a man circumcised as a child is more likely to react with terror, rage and/or dissociation when confronted with situations interpreted as threatening. As in any situation of post-traumatic stress, an event resembling any aspect of the original traumatic experience is more likely to provoke negative emotions such as panic, rage, violence, or dissociation.
It is therefore not surprising that PTSD may result from childhood circumcision (Goldman, 1997, 1999, Menage, 1999; Ramos & Boyle, 2001), just as it does from childhood sexual abuse and rape (Bownes, O'Gorman, & Sayers, 1991; Deblinger, McLeer, & Henry, 1990; Duddle, 1991). Several researchers have concluded that PTSD may result from circumcision and/or from circumcision-related sequelae in later life. For example, Rhinehart (1999) reported finding PTSD in middle-aged men who had been subjected to infant circumcision. Circumcision involves an imbalance of power between perpetrator and victim, contains both aggressive and libidinal elements, and threatens a child's sexual integrity by amputating part of the genitalia. Some men circumcised in infancy or childhood without their consent have described their present feelings in the language of violation, torture, mutilation, and sexual assault (Bigelow, 1995; Hammond, 1997, 1999).
Even if the psychological sequelae of circumcision do not coalesce into a formal diagnosis of PTSD, it is possible that there may be long-lasting effects on a man's life, particularly in psychologically sensitive individuals with comorbidity factors (cf. Mezey & Robbins, 2001). Presumably responding to their current interpretation and feelings, many circumcised men who have recognised the loss of a highly erogenous, irreplaceable part of their penis have reported long-lasting emotional suffering, grief, anxiety, and depression, and a sense of personal vulnerability (Hammond, 1997, 1999). Avoidance or obsessive preoccupation with such a loss, along with anger, can be difficult to reconcile for some men depending on their particular personality (Bigelow, 1995; Maguire, 1998; van der Kolk, 1989). Emotional numbing, avoidance of the topic of circumcision, and anger are potential long-term psychological consequences of the circumcision trauma (Bigelow, 1995; Bensley & Boyle, 2001; Boyle & Bensley, 2001; Gemmell & Boyle, 2001; Goldman, 1997, 1999). In extreme cases, there might be aggressive, violent, and/or suicidal behaviour (Anand & Scalzo, 2000; Bradley, Oliver, & Chernick, 1998; Jacobson et al., 1987; Jacobson & Bygdeman, 1998).
Hmmm, I thought that I already posted a response , but alas it is nowhere to be found.simonshack wrote:Omaxsteve,omaxsteve wrote:Here is an interesting, albeit long. article written by a Muslim ....
By: Dr Farrukh Saleem
Why are Jews so powerful?
(............bla...................
..............bla...............
..............bla...............
..............bla...............)
So, why are Muslims so powerless?
Answer: Lack of education.
All we do is shout to Allah the whole day !!! and blame everyone else for our multiple failures!!!!!
Just in what way, if you please, is that article 'interesting' - or relevant to the present discussion?
Oh wait - I take it that the 'lesson' you're proposing here is that education is the key to becoming powerful? And that if 'uneducated people' are powerless - it is just due to their 'inferior education'? And that if (so many) Jews are rich & powerful - it is simply to be ascribed to their 'superior education' ? Good grief.
Excuse me, but just because that pathetic piece is authored by a Muslim writer doesn't make it sound any less crass than your average, shallow and condescending imperialist 'think tank' twaddle - as might just as well have been put together by your typical, gloating Jewish supremacist. So let's see who this Farrukh Saleem guy is - and what he's up to.
Aha! So it is KNOWLEDGE - and not EDUCATION - that's the real problem here. Well, come to think of it, our Farrukh "think tanker" guy may actually have a great point after all: just imagine what would happen if the entire Muslim world were properly informed with the knowledge we have gathered over the years on this very forum. See, something tells me that the folks controlling the world's media outlets are working very, very hard to keep this knowledge from reaching the Muslim world.
"Dr. Farrukh Saleem is the Pakistani Executive Director of the Center for Research and Security Studies, a think tank established in 2007, and an Islamabad-based freelance columnist - [ cum-economic theorist, financial analyst writer, and television personality]."
http://www.aish.com/authors/111846219.html
"The Center for Research and Security Studies (CRSS) is a Pakistani independent non-profit think tank founded by civil society activists to conduct research and advocacy on democratic governance, regional peace and security, human rights, and counter-radicalization. The head of the think tank is Imtiaz Gul, a strategic analyst, writer, and journalist. Besides writing for national and international magazines, he is the author of books such as The Unholy Nexus: Afghan-Pakistan Relations under the Taliban Militia, The Al-Qaeda Connection, The Most Dangerous Place, and Pakistan: Before and After Osama bin Laden."
"Saleem extensively writes on Jewish people, Israel and its geopolitical policies. In his recent article, Saleem advocated for directing a friendly-foreign policy for Israel. In his notable article, "Why are Jews so powerful and Muslims so powerless?", Saleem argues that, for every single Jew in the world there are 100 Muslims. Yet, Jews are more than a hundred times more powerful than all the Muslims put together. Concluding the article, Saleem pointed out that, the Muslim world is failing to diffuse knowledge".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farrukh_Saleem
above quote from: Social Psychology, Sixth Edition by Elliot Aronson, University of California-Santa Cruz Timothy D. Wilson, University of VirginiaThere are two reasons why it is almost impossible to get a person holding a deep-seated prejudice to change his or her mind. First, it is primarily the emotional aspect of attitudes that makes a prejudiced person hard to argue with; logic is not effective in countering emotions—people will ignore or distort any challenge to their belief. Second, people with strong prejudices have a firmly established schema for the target group(s); this will lead them to pay attention to, and recall more often, information that is consistent with their beliefs than that which is inconsistent. Thus stereotypes become relatively impervious to change.
