Each of us can (& does) believe what he or she would like. But there simply is no historical or other support for the idea that infant #circumcision always has been an immutable requirement for Jewish identity, & so no basis for the idea it couldn't be changed yet again. #i2
-
-
Replying to @cooney21 @RockerMan_198 and
. The Torah has been increasingly validated by historical research &material findings &never once invalidated Any contrary statement is unsupported speculation All academic work is loaded with suppositions &qualifiers Bottom line is universal Jewish practice on the ground
3 replies 1 retweet 5 likes -
Replying to @realChaim_Rubin @cooney21 and
The members of the Smegma Platoon have psychological issues w/circumcision, the origin of which is obscure & probably differs. Some complain of decreased sensation. Others feel cheated & angry. Others fixate on Jews. The overwhelming # of circumcised men are fine w/it. Not them.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @COPIA_COPMA1 @realChaim_Rubin and
There's no evidence most circumcised men are "fine w/it." This study addressed that issue & found 64% of men cut as neonates had a negative view of it: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/319635437_Attitude_Toward_One's_Circumcision_Status_Is_More_Important_than_Actual_Circumcision_Status_for_Men's_Body_Image_and_Sexual_Functioning … The decreased sensation is a valid reason to object to it & why it's not ok to force it on an infant.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @cooney21 @realChaim_Rubin and
An online survey? Very scientific.. One wonders about the participation of the Smegma Platoon.. "A total of 811 men (367 circumcised as neonates, 107 circumcised in childhood, 47 circumcised in adulthood, and 290 intact) completed an online survey."
3 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @COPIA_COPMA1 @realChaim_Rubin and
Your attempt to discredit, with what you think is a clever derogatory label, the views of the hundreds of circumcised men in that study who said they negatively view the circumcisions that were forced on their bodies is just another of your empty, ad hominem attacks.
#i22 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @cooney21 @realChaim_Rubin and
I'm not discrediting anyone's views. I'm simply questioning the validity of this so-called study. It was an online survey, w/only 300+ circumcised men, so do you know whether that 300 may have been polluted by foreskin advocates such as you & your fellow Smegma Platoon members?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @COPIA_COPMA1 @realChaim_Rubin and
"Not discrediting anyone's views, just saying their views about what was done to their own bodies must have been polluted because they disagree with how I think they must view what was done to their own bodies."
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @cooney21 @COPIA_COPMA1 and
It is obvious to sane & rational people that expressing unhappiness with a surgically reduced, less sensitive & less functional body part is a perfectly valid reaction - indeed, one that ought to be expected - and not "polluted" as you so delusionally have suggested.
#i21 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @cooney21 @realChaim_Rubin and
It's not a question of having a right to their views. It's an issue of you citing as authoritative an online study that may not have been random, but rather full of circumcised foreskin fanatics.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
You've assumed, contrary to reason & w/out any basis whatsoever, that those expressing a negative view about having a healthy body part cut from them are "fanatics". That's an absurd assumption, one that wouldn't be made about any other body part & shows total lack of objectivity
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.