Atheist Infighting Represents Larger Social Trends In Society’s Ideology

http://skepchick.org/2011/07/the-privilege-delusion/

http://takimag.com/article/twilight_of_the_skeptics/print

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2011/07/richard-dawkins-chewing-gum

Above article’s description:

Atheist female states male circumcision is no big deal but then states how horrific female circumcision is. Then she complains about a atheist male asking her on a date and links it to being discriminated against based on gender. Richard Dawkins then calls her stupid and then she calls Dawkins a privileged white male and the atheist community gangs up against Dawkins.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Kali-yuga, MGM, sin, women and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Atheist Infighting Represents Larger Social Trends In Society’s Ideology

  1. janoklark says:

    I’ve noticed that some skeptics are not against circ at all. How strange that such a powerful plank for their platform is of little or no interest to them. What a boring group of folks.

    The best I can say for them is that 1. they are often honest that they do not perceive God (and are probably acting out so they can get help with that) and 2. they may provide some useful criticism to tin-can, sectarian religious folk who harm true religion as much as they do society.

  2. oogenhand says:

    If we compare cutting the foreskin to cutting the clitoris to full infibulation, we are comparing cutting a finger to cutting a hand to cutting an arm. I tend to side with Rebecca Watson.

    If you fight male circumcision, you do not get only the muslims and the religious jews, but also the secular jews and even the christians against you. As most atheists are in favor of legalized abortion, you have to argue that being a mutilated adult is worse than not existing at all. Tricky, especially without legalized euthanasia.

    • janoklark says:

      Have you researched these types of mutilation? Amputating the foreskin and frenulum removes from 20,000 to 100,000 fine-touch nerve endings. It is impossible to remove that much from a woman, as most of her gear is inside the body where knives cannot reach. Removal of the clitoris and clitoral hood would still remove only 8,000 nerves. There is also research showing that mutilated women report having fantastic sex lives: source; source2

      The equivalent of infibulation for a man would be stitching up the front of the foreskin. It’s not that bad.

      To further analyze, crimped men lose the mucosa, motility and G-spot (frenulum). To do this to a woman, she’d lose the clitoris, clitoral hood, labias, and have to get at least four inches of her vagina scraped out. But even at that point, she wouldn’t lose as many nerves.

      Yes it’s true atheists will have a hard time with intactivism. Never thought of that angle you mention, that most of them are pro-abortion.

      You might get some ignorant Christians against you in the states, but for example in Italy the edicts against circ clearly stated in the Bible are well-understood and enforced. Paul calls circumcisers dogs and mutilators of the flesh, and says they should go mutilate themselves (this is stated in Galations). For Catholics there is also a catechism which strictly forbids Catholics to circumcise.

      • oogenhand says:

        The best case for intactivism is indeed religion. Sikhs are another good example.
        The second best case would involve arguing that masturbation prevents abortion. Masturbation aids in MGTOW.
        Infibulation is generally an euphemism for pharaonic circumcision, which involves removal of the clitoris, the inner labiae and part of the outer labiae, and then sewing the place shut. This creates difficulties during urination and child birth. There is a lot of willful obfuscation between:

        A- removal of the clitoral hood, and/or trimming the inner labiae (labiaplasty)
        B- clitoridectomy, often combined with full removal of the inner labiae(excision)
        C- pharaonic circumcision/infibulation

        As A and even B are Western, and A,B and C are Islamic(B and C also pagan Egyptian), the motives for obfuscation are obvious. Kill Palestinians because Somalis sew their daughters shut.
        Also the informed consent aspect is generally obfuscated. A is usually consensual, B and C usually aren’t. Hence the position of the feminists.

      • janoklark says:

        OM. you’re assuming that scratching the itch cures the itch. as Yogananda said, “Ever fed, never satisfied; never fed, ever satisfied”. masturbation is abortion (of the procreative act, of around a million seeds for human life). MGTOW is harnessing their sexual power, not wasting it down the toilet.

        the feminist position makes no sense because FGM occurs in the exact same places as MGM. there is no place on earth where they mutilate girls but not boys. boys always come first, and the damage taken by boys is always greater. as previously stated, there is no way to surgically mimic the damage done to boys on girls. a tribe featured on the BBC as doing infibulation also mutilates boys, and mutilates them more severely. even infibulation cannot take away the mucosa, motility and g-spot (located around three inches on the top inside of the vagina) of a woman.

        the feminist/jewish position is preposterous because instead of focusing on human rights, they just want to protect women. considering that the most pertinent, internationally influential politic surrounding GM is in the USA, it’s important to note that this position is not even constutional. the 14th amendment states that all laws and protections are to be applied to all genders, races, religions EQUALLY. if you fight for only the rights of women, you’re fighting for no one’s rights.

        in practice in Africa, jews and europeans are showing up and saying mutilation of women and only mutilation of women is wrong. this position does not make sense. it is not a principle. thus the africans cannot understand it or implement it. the anti-FGM position actually seriously erodes the principles of intactivism, i.e., that all humans have the right to the whole bodies as given. OM

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s