PDA

View Full Version : Is Circumcision Same as Human Flaying?


Yunus
November 7th, 2009, 09:48
Is circumcision same as human flaying which is very bad?

greg_b
November 7th, 2009, 12:19
Flaying is the removal of skin. Human flaying is generally used for torture and killing. They share some things, both remove skin, both are considered horrible things.

But they are also quite different. Circumcison removes a much smaller amount of skin than is generally considered when discussing flaying, and is done for other purposes.

Why do you want to compare them?

Regards

Yunus
November 7th, 2009, 23:13
Because sometime I think that circumcision methods are like flaying process on the animal,which remove the skin from the creature's body entirely or partly and then they sell the skin for their profit,when I saw circumcision and animal flaying video.

I think that animal flaying is almost same as human flaying.

Someone mundane
November 8th, 2009, 06:19
Because sometime I think that circumcision methods are like flaying process on the animal,which remove the skin from the creature's body entirely or partly and then they sell the skin for their profit,when I saw circumcision and animal flaying video.

I think that animal flaying is almost same as human flaying.

Just don't lose perspective. Stripping a human being of ALL it's skin would pretty much kill them. They are different, in terms of the severity. Flaying is a much more extreme action, circumcision on the other hand, bad as it is, only removes a small and localized portion of the skin leaving the victim (Or, if in a consensual setting... Patient.) alive. If you're drawing similarities simply because they both involve the removal of skin and you think that is sufficient alone... I guess you could consider them somewhat the same. (And I'll give you the benefit of the doubt as you did say almost) But as I said. Severity. Perspective on that needs to be kept. Circumcision doesn't kill, it injures. For these reasons, I wouldn't consider them to be the same thing. But they do share traits, yes. Especially when severed foreskin is sold...

All I am saying is to be careful calling them the same thing around others who don't see (non-consensual) circumcision rationally as a violation.

Yunus
November 8th, 2009, 08:57
Circumcision is a human partial flaying.Sometimes,circumcision killed boys and men with very low probability like partial flaying did too.

As the example,partial flaying is performed on healthy people's skin finger and this people don't die because of this finger skin flaying,but it has very low probability to die and only hurt the people,right.And this partial flaying is like circumcision.

So,what are the differences between partial flaying and circumcision?

greg_b
November 8th, 2009, 09:47
I think the biggest difference is intent. This is also what you need to be most careful of if you decide to bring this comparison up, which I would not do.

Flaying is done to kill, maime, and torture. At least as it is typically used. That is a lot different than RIC, which is done to provide benefits, misguided though they may be. Big difference. You risk alienating people and closing their minds by using this comparison.

People have also compared RIC with child molesting. This is because, in order to perform a RIC, the baby's penis needs to be erect. So doctors typically stimulate the baby's penis, at least that is my understanding. But comparing that to child molesting, while technically perhaps correct, is not going to foster open communication and changing of minds. The intent is completely different.

Think carefully about what you want to accomplish with any comparison or analogy you use. If your goal is to open peoples' minds to the arguments against RIC, I would not use either of these.

Regards

Yunus
November 8th, 2009, 10:19
Flaying is done to kill, maime, and torture. At least as it is typically used. That is a lot different than RIC, which is done to provide benefits, misguided though they may be. Big difference. You risk alienating people and closing their minds by using this comparison.

Yes,but also sometimes partial flaying is done to make its victim suffering very well too like some neonatal circumcisions which are performed without anesthetic,so it makes the baby suffering very well.

greg_b
November 8th, 2009, 18:20
Yes,but also sometimes partial flaying is done to make its victim suffering very well too like some neonatal circumcisions which are performed without anesthetic,so it makes the baby suffering very well.

My point is that they do not circumcise to cause suffering.

Regards,

Yunus
November 9th, 2009, 02:36
My point is that they do not circumcise to cause suffering.

Regards,

Yes,you may be right,but their hidden conspiracy is making males suffering and they take so many profits from circumcision.

greg_b
November 9th, 2009, 05:27
No argument from me that RIC causes intense suffering, damages mother son bonding, and can have lasting effects we do not yet understand. And the profit motive is there too.

Regards

Yunus
November 9th, 2009, 07:05
What I believed is that circumcision has no benefit to humans or all creatures especially males and circumcision only give suffering,misery,sorrow,etc.

Circumcision's benefit purpose like saving people life is just an imagination purpose only and no more than that.
This imagination purpose,which is just a lie and told by a group of crazy circumfetish people,shall not be the difference between circumcision and flaying.

There is no difference between circumcision and human flaying.
No one should believe that circumcision is good and has so many benefits.

It is so funny because people,who go through craziness with circumfetish people lies,agreed circumcision,which is very inhumanly and immoral and also barbaric practice,more than animal mutilation like declawing,flaying,etc.
They also spoke and agreed human right and being humanly,but they denied what they spoke about by agreeing circumcision very well.