German court bans circumcision

[u crank]

Originally Posted by Skybird

I tend to judge a religious ideology by its scripture, becasue it claims to base on that scripture. And in all three "holy" scirptires of the desert dogmas, women are subordinate to men, and second class beings.

Judging a religion or for that matter any group by what they say or by what they hold as a doctrine while 'disregarding' what they actually do in practice will give you a distorted view of them.

Originally Posted by Skybird

The church surely did its best to supress women. Until today it prevents equality being recognised.

I'm not sure of which 'church' you are speaking about but I know of no non-fundamentalist Protestant denominations that suppress women. In fact some of the fundamentalist types would call these denominations 'too liberal'. So you cannot make that generalization. I do not know any women who attend church or profess to have faith in God who claim to be suppressed. Quite the opposite, many are leaders and teachers.

Originally Posted by Skybird

- maybe you are not that Christian/fundamentalist/"Churchian" at all. What do I know about you!

Well Skybird I am a Christian but under the current definition of 'fundamentalist' I would fail completely. Not sure what a "Churchian" is. Is this a new sect?

Yes, I guess we all have lots to learn about each other.

Again I tell you that piercing an earlobe by needle and and mutilating genitals DO NOT COMPARE

Again I say that it was you who made the comparison to support your views, it blew up in your face and now you are argueing against your own arguements.

I give you a clue: the law says:

I could have sworn you already claimed it said something else.

And I would ask you for a personal opinion on yours. What is your verdict on the first article of the German constitution

Is that the one you said meant children couldn't get their ears pierced as it was mutilation and child abuse?
Since you appear to have run away from your views while trying to maintain your views as unchanged should we ask you for your current verdict on article one?

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by u crank

Judging a religion or for that matter any group by what they say or by what they hold as a doctrine while 'disregarding' what they actually do in practice will give you a distorted view of them.

Or a correct view that shows that they are distorting the holy texts they claim - wrongly - to base upon.

I'm not sure of which 'church' you are speaking about but I know of no non-fundamentalist Protestant denominations that suppress women.

Then you never have heared of the Catholic church, and have not read the Bible - both old and new testament. Even Jesus apparently was not at all in that all-embracing mood to unconditionally welcome the idea that women shall be equal in rights to men. Allthough by the standards of his time he was a revolutionary improvement in that regard, I give him that.

In fact some of the fundamentalist types would call these denominations 'too liberal'. So you cannot make that generalization. I do not know any women who attend church or profess to have faith in God who claim to be suppressed. Quite the opposite, many are leaders and teachers.

Show me a Catholic female Cardinal. Priests. Show me the Vatican allowing females equal rights in their hierarchy. Allowing them self-determination regarding whether or not they want to use contraceptives, may it be for preventing pregnancy, may it be condoms for protecting against AIDS. As I said somewhere above, some Catholic private schools in Britain just have forbidden their female students to get injections against cervical cancer.

Well Skybird I am a Christian but under the current definition of 'fundamentalist' I would fail completely.

You said that before in an early thread, and it ended ugly. I take you by what you express in opinions, not by what you claim you want to be understood as. And I see you not as that harmless secular guy you want me to believe. Niot the ultra-.hardcore fundamentlaist, but still: fundamentalism is on oyur list, without you being aware of it.

Not sure what a "Churchian" is. Is this a new sect?

I differ between Chrisztians in the meaning of truly listening and basing of the only authority Christians can have: the man whom they claled the Christ and what the four gospels claim he had said, and Christians in the meaning of being members of sects or the main churches, becaswue I think Jesus'Ä preaching sand the church have nothing in common. The chuich is not Christzian at all. It is what it is: the Church. Not "Christianity". If oyu think that si qujeer, then remeber from Isalam threads that I make the same distinction between Muslims truly basing on the basis of IKslamic dogma - the exmaple of Muhammad's lie, Quran, Sharia - and Muslioms who do not consequently lived by that and thus ion principle qualify for apostacy and thus: exceution, althought they stillc laim to be Muslims. On 24th December, the churches are crowded with people claiming to be Christians. I say most of them are not Christian at all. Most of these people are sentimental - and that is something different.

Yes, I guess we all have lots to learn about each other.

Really? Regarding what has been discussed between you and me, aren't things not already clear? We are very different, you and me.

[u crank]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Then you never have heared of the Catholic church, and have not read the Bible - both old and new testament.

The catholic church is not a non-fundamentalist Protestant denomination.

The Bible, yeah I glanced through it once.

Originally Posted by Skybird

You said that before in an early thread, and it ended ugly. I take you by what you express in opinions, not by what you claim you want to be understood as. And I see you not as that harmless secular guy you want me to believe. Niot the ultra-.hardcore fundamentlaist, but still: fundamentalism is on oyur list, without you being aware of it.

Your powers of discernment are remarkable given the distance and your knowledge about me. I will repeat once more. I am a Christian. I am not a fundamentalist. The two are not mutually inclusive. Neither am I this 'harmless secular guy', whatever that is. I am beginning to doubt your knowledge and insight on this subject.

Originally Posted by Skybird

Really? Regarding what has been discussed between you and me, aren't things not already clear? We are very different, you and me.

We are very different and some things are very clear. So?

Does every one you know agree with every thing you say or do you browbeat them into submission? I make an attempt at some sort of conciliation and you seem to reject it. Are you rejecting it?

For my part I can't help it. That book I glanced at says "to be at peace with all men, if at all possible."

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by u crank

Does every one you know agree with every thing you say or do you browbeat them into submission? I make an attempt at some sort of conciliation and you seem to reject it. Are you rejecting it?

It's what he does. I just finished standing up for Skybird because I thought the opposition in that case was unwarranted. Now I will take the other stance. I have had him dump on me, not because I disagreed but because I didn't agree with him the way he thought I should.

This is his bad habit.

[kranz]

seems like sheep are leaving Skybird's Congregation.
(dunno why, but I have these rats squeals and an image of a sinking ship in my head...)
Long time ago, someone wise on this board said that "he didn't come here to discuss but to preach." (forgot who said that but he should have been awarded with POTY)

anyways...I know it will sound perverted but actually this is one of two arguments (among all he has posted) with which I agree. (I need to give myself 20 lashes for that...)

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

It's what he does. I just finished standing up for Skybird because I thought the opposition in that case was unwarranted. Now I will take the other stance. I have had him dump on me, not because I disagreed but because I didn't agree with him the way he thought I should.

This is his bad habit.

The total freedom thing? Well, Steve, you simply did not see that certain inner contradiction in your thinking, and were angry that I put the finger into that wound.

I do not chnage mind or alter my opinion just to do somebody favours. I also do not respect a different opinion for the mere sake of respecting a different opinion. Opinions are not respectable in themselves - the reasons behind them are what makes them respectable, or not. I respect a different opinion if the other can explain reasonably, not just by making random and arbitrary speculations, why he comes to his differing conclusions. An opinion itself means little to me, at worst it is an annoyance reality greets me with - as a realist I take note of its exitence, and that'S it. Wheter or not people can explain their opinion without entangling themselves in illogical contradictions or flawed information - that is what it was about. u_crank claims to be this thing, while by what I take from his other comments indicates he his quite something different. Many people do not want to be labelled as what they seem to behave at, or do not want to be held responsible for the consequences of the positions they take. And you did ignore certain self-destructive implications of your position back then, when you and me collided. You were not able to resolve it until the very end of the story. Well.

I was not convinced by you two. If that equals that I "dumped on you", either you or u_crank: I have occasionally changed my mind in the past, and I said that in forum posts, and sometimes it was due to something said in this forum, sometimes it was due to "life" and may have taken a bit longer than just from one day to the next. I also sometimes went wrong, or attacked in unacceptable ways. I repeatedly admitted to that then, and were due I apologised then. But that was when I was forced to see my wrong, or was convinced of new input forcing me to change my former views, or I realised all by myself that I behaved bad.

But do not expect me to just do favours, opinion- or apology-wise.

And while the obvious rethoric counterstrike is inviting after the above sentence: don't . Just don't. Just leave it in the context I said it in.

[u crank]

It is worth remembering that the two developed countries in which circumcision is most widely practiced, Israel and the United States, have what many consider to be two of the most violent governments in the world. On a criminal level, we are probably the most violent developed country. Research has suggested that these facts are connected and not simple coincidence. Psychobiological studies support this theory.

Yeah. I stopped reading when I got to that part.

Originally Posted by Skybird

I do not chnage mind or alter my opinion just to do somebody favours. I also do not respect a different opinion for the mere sake of respecting a different opinion. Opinions are not respectable in themselves - the reasons behind them are what makes them respectable, or not. I respect a different opinion if the other can explain reasonably, not just by making random and arbitrary speculations, why he comes to his differing conclusions. An opinion itself means little to me, at worst it is an annoyance reality greets me with - as a realist I take note of its exitence, and that'S it. Wheter or not people can explain their opinion without entangling themselves in illogical contradictions or flawed information - that is what it was about.

Entering any debate or discussion with this mindset puts you at an extreme disadvantage. Not only do you lose the respect of those you debate with, but you shut yourself off from any possible new ideas. The fact that you don't respect other's opinions because they cannot be explained to 'your' satisfaction must mean that you would expect the same treatment. What is the point then? It now changes from debate to 'dogmatic preaching. It's just useless shouting. Perhaps this is what you prefer?

Originally Posted by Skybird

u_crank claims to be this thing, while by what I take from his other comments indicates he his quite something different. Many people do not want to be labelled as what they seem to behave at, or do not want to be held responsible for the consequences of the positions they take. And you did ignore certain self-destructive implications of your position back then, when you and me collided. You were not able to resolve it until the very end of the story. Well.

A further explanation will be necessary, although I don't really require it. Your past attempts to tell me what I believe or what I represent have been entertaining, but unfortunately incorrect. Other than stating a simple fact.."I am a Christian', I have said little. You are attempting to put me in a box that suits your view points. I refuse to get in it.

Originally Posted by Skybird

I was not convinced by you two.

But do not expect me to just do favours, opinion- or apology-wise.

I am not trying to convince you about any thing. I am not expecting any favours either.

What I am hoping for is friendly, respectful and meaningful debate. Is that possible?

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Skybird

The total freedom thing? Well, Steve, you simply did not see that certain inner contradiction in your thinking, and were angry that I put the finger into that wound.

And you start it all over again. When I tried to explain that my position was not absolute, but simply a starting point for discussion, you attacked me for being absolute. When I tried to explain that I agreed with you in certain points, you ignored that and continued to attack the position you decided I held. You didn't even listen to me when I tried to have a discussion - you attacked the position you insisted I held even when I tried to explain that my position wasn't what you thought it was. You didn't even listen to me, or argue with me. You attacked one thing I said long ago. There was no discussion on your part, just attack and dismissal.

I do not chnage mind or alter my opinion just to do somebody favours. I also do not respect a different opinion for the mere sake of respecting a different opinion.

The problem isn't differing opinions. You insist that your opinion is fact, and you dismiss anything else as flat wrong. You treat everyone else as your inferior, and you talk down to them, as if lecturing a first-year student. You consider yourself "right", and leave no room for anything else.

You are arrogant, pure and simple. Even your fellow Germans think you're a joke.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

And you start it all over again. When I tried to explain that my position was not absolute, but simply a starting point for discussion, you attacked me for being absolute. When I tried to explain that I agreed with you in certain points, you ignored that and continued to attack the position you decided I held. You didn't even listen to me when I tried to have a discussion - you attacked the position you insisted I held even when I tried to explain that my position wasn't what you thought it was. You didn't even listen to me, or argue with me. You attacked one thing I said long ago. There was no discussion on your part, just attack and dismissal.

You were logically inconsistend and completely ingored a certain dilemma that I showed to you, and for which you ha dno solution, but you did not draw a consequence from that, and but sticked with your self-contradictory position. That'S waht it wa sabout, always, not more, not less. What you later put into it in explanations, were your follow-on excuses. no explanations, no solution to that dilemma.

And since you mentioned my "fellow Germans", back then two guys, one moderator, from your country mailed me, recommending that I should stop it, that you were simply stuck over your false argument and could not see the contrtadiction you entangled youzrself in, and thus it were useless to carry on. Which proved to be right. Obviously I were not the only one perceiving you knocking yourself out.

And you still give a flawed story about what it was about. I wonder if you really had not realised that dilemma, or if I just had touched a sore nerve of yours.

Anyhow.

The problem isn't differing opinions. You insist that your opinion is fact, and you dismiss anything else as flat wrong.

No, I dismiss somethign as unlikely or wrong when the wrong aspect alraedy has been shown or whether the correctness is very unlikely. As I said, not the opnion is whta counts, every Peter and Paul can claim soemhtign and demand recongition buy nennobling his wild speculation by calling it "an opinion!" Reasons and arguments for that opinion, basis in data and information - that is what decides wheter I respoect an opinion or not. An opinion that ignores own self-contradictions and behaves as if these were non-existent, certainly does not motivate me to take it any more serious.

You treat everyone else as your inferior, and you talk down to them, as if lecturing a first-year student. You consider yourself "right", and leave no room for anything else.

Sometimes. When I think I have a solid reaosn not to take the other's opinion serious anymore. Which is not a given from all beginning on. You can coinvince me - but you need according arguments or information. Yopu see, I see no worth in vopicing an opinion of my own that I have not thought about and that I later must chnage time and again, becaseu I did not give it enough thinking and informing myself. The more often somebody alters his opinion, the more this is a sign that he has had a very poor and ill-thought-out opinion from beginning on. That certainly is no compliment to this somebody. For exyample I I would start to discuss techncialities of subamrine reactores, I would need to chnage my "opinion" very often, probbly, becasue I now not much about these things, and have had no experience and no education on them. So I decided I am better off to not start such a thread, because I have too little interest in the matter as if I would want to get that education and invest that time needed. But on other things, I have had a better level of inpout and experience. I invested the time, and read some sutff and observed some things and so on. And my current opinions try to relect and take into account all that a sbest as I can manage. The more seldom others force me by their argument to change my position, the more certain I am that my position is well chosen, and so why should I give it up and change my mind? To do you a favour and appear "not arrogant" in your eyes? As I said: do not expect me to do favours in debate. I don't. And sometimes, when the same straman argument or the same "tactic" of evading or distracting is used, the same diffamation or rethorical trick, I sometimes cut things short, or ignore them completely, yes. Everything becomes tiresome from some point on, and not worth to put any more effort into it. If not taking such things or people serious anymore makes me "arrogant", then I think I am still not "arrogant" enough. Which would be to my shame, then.

You are arrogant, pure and simple. Even your fellow Germans think you're a joke.

Not the ones I know for sure. And I probably know many more of them than you do. Anyhow: better arrogant than being inconsequent, or self-contradictory. With an "arrogant" man, you still can come to terms and reach a deal, with an inconsequent and self-contradictory, you cannot, and any deal you reach you never can really trust in.