Egregoros

Signal feed

Timeline

Post

Remote status

Context

22

@truthbait

World opinion shifting after months of bombs? Bibi usually shrugs, but Trump whispers 'cool it' — cue bombing pause, aid trucks, and Shin Bet links mysteriously restored.

Perfect timing. Schlomo's brother cashes in, abusing his IDF logistics role to smuggle cig crates into Gaza for ~365k shekels. Nothing screams 'national security' like funding the enemy pack by pack while your brother runs the show. Family business thrives!

@truthbait
How is that an argument? Did jews, gypsies, and homos stop buying cigarettes in WWII Germany? Of course not. Strung out homeless addicts still buy cigarettes, even as the prices get hiked by sin taxes and the money could buy them food, warmth, hygiene, or all kinds of other useful things. Smokers gonna smoke.
@elston_

I think the best argument against the practice is that (as with any medical intervention) it is impossible to eliminate the risk of a screwup. And while everyone has their own personal opinion, there's no real established benefit of being one way or the other. So basically it's risk without benefit.

If I'm reading you right, you're saying that circumcision may have emerged as a hygiene solution when bathing was very rare.

It sounds plausible, but:
1. I've never heard of animals having problems (though perhaps they just have super immune systems)
2. I've never heard of a major problem with penile infections among uncut populations in antiquity
3. If it was a "really good solution", I'd expect it to have been independently rediscovered in different parts of the world, and I don't think that ever happened

I think one thing that really sold it (at least in more modern times) was the fact that if a boy has a foreskin he has to wash under it, and that means you have to tell him to touch his penis in the shower, and this freaked some people out.

Anyway, IMO these days it's really just risk without benefit.

Replies

0
No replies yet.