Traditional initiation is a rite of passage into manhood for young males that is practiced by various ethnic groups in Africa, including parts of South Africa. Among them are the Xhosa, Ndebele, Sotho and Venda communities.
Your “cultural practices” ends when it harms another sentient being. Funny how you also want to harm the animals for selfish reasons by pushing misinformation on the plant-based diet to make excuses to eat the flesh and secretions of others.
The main purpose of male circumcision is to prevent harm. Funny how you are so passionate about a subject you don’t even understand. You have the whole idea backwards.
It seems you’re very uneducated. Genital mutilation is performed in order to mark the child as a member of an insane cult, and hinder masturbation. This is very well documented by cult “scholars”. The “reduce infection” thing is a new excuse made up to fool normal people into tolerating insane child abusing cultists.
Sounds like you’re getting your information from an 18th century “race scientist”. Do you also believe that intelligence can be measured by how many ball bearings can fit inside someone’s skull?
The motive might be to prevent harm, but motive does not justify actions. Parents literally used to beat children, to make them more obedient and thereby “protecting” them. Some parents today will prevent their child being vaccinated from life threatening diseases, because in their culture vaccines are seen as bad, and their warped view of medicine makes them think they are protecting their children.
Cherry-picking propaganda is a common strategy for anti-vaxxers, as well. The “study” you provided conveniently ignored the most common infection related to having an intact foreskin. The risks are highest among young boys.
Reposting the same article doesn’t add to the conversation…it just reveals that you have nothing more to add. That article focuses on the least common forms of infection relating to the foreskin, while ignoring the most common. It is an intellectually dishonest attempt at invalidating the benefits of circumcision by cherry picking data to suit your narrative.
White nationalists have been using these types of studies for years now, in order to turn public opinion against immigrants. It’s wildly disingenuous…but rather effective, as long as you choose not to look any deeper into the subject.
Your “cultural practices” ends when it harms another sentient being. Funny how you also want to harm the animals for selfish reasons by pushing misinformation on the plant-based diet to make excuses to eat the flesh and secretions of others.
The main purpose of male circumcision is to prevent harm. Funny how you are so passionate about a subject you don’t even understand. You have the whole idea backwards.
It seems you’re very uneducated. Genital mutilation is performed in order to mark the child as a member of an insane cult, and hinder masturbation. This is very well documented by cult “scholars”. The “reduce infection” thing is a new excuse made up to fool normal people into tolerating insane child abusing cultists.
Sounds like you’re getting your information from an 18th century “race scientist”. Do you also believe that intelligence can be measured by how many ball bearings can fit inside someone’s skull?
Not at all. This is pretty much as official cultist lore as it get. Required reading for those born into the Jewish sect.
The motive might be to prevent harm, but motive does not justify actions. Parents literally used to beat children, to make them more obedient and thereby “protecting” them. Some parents today will prevent their child being vaccinated from life threatening diseases, because in their culture vaccines are seen as bad, and their warped view of medicine makes them think they are protecting their children.
Motive is not justification.
Shoooosh!
Cherry-picking propaganda is a common strategy for anti-vaxxers, as well. The “study” you provided conveniently ignored the most common infection related to having an intact foreskin. The risks are highest among young boys.
Shoooosh
Reposting the same article doesn’t add to the conversation…it just reveals that you have nothing more to add. That article focuses on the least common forms of infection relating to the foreskin, while ignoring the most common. It is an intellectually dishonest attempt at invalidating the benefits of circumcision by cherry picking data to suit your narrative.
White nationalists have been using these types of studies for years now, in order to turn public opinion against immigrants. It’s wildly disingenuous…but rather effective, as long as you choose not to look any deeper into the subject.
Shoooosh!
Is that why King David ordered all of those foreskins? He was looking out for their genital hygiene?
Lol ok bud.
You know the stories in the Bible aren’t “literal”…right?