Ableton Forum

M. Bréqs wrote:...You do lose it. I've spoken with men who were circuimscised as an adult and they claimed they lost a significant ammount of sensitivity. They could still bust a nut, but it was more like "pppfffffft" rather that "BWWWAAAANG!!!"

I was snipped as an infant, and I'm fucking pissed that I was never given the option.

I would never advocate getting circumsized as an adult... it's practically inhuman. And, we're talking apples to oranges in the amount of sensitivity here. Female circumcision amounts to a reduction of sensitivity by 99%. Um, that's alot different than a minor loss.

stinky wrote:

kennerb wrote:But yet the cutting of the forskin off a guy is just Okey Dokey in Western society.

Yeah, actually. That's because you (a male) don't lose orgasmic sensation, as well as it being more hygenic.

That hygenic line is crap. Sorry. Maybe it was true for people who lived in tents and travelled all the time a coupla thousand years ago.

Do you really think humans would have evolved and survived for the amount of time that we have with a forskin that caused hygene issues.

I would also like to know who was the judge of determining that no sensation is lost in the mutilation of the most sensitive part of a man's body.

Mutilation is mutilation no matter what culture it is. Even if one thinks they are more "cultured"

stinky wrote:

M. Bréqs wrote:Abdul Rahman al-Rashed, the general manager of Al-Arabiya, wrote on the 19th: "We have lost most of our causes and the largest portions of our lands following fiery speeches and empty promises of struggle coupled with hallucinating, drug-induced political fantasies."

Tariq Alhomayed, editor in chief of the Arab daily Asharq al-Awsat: "Mr. Nasrallah bombastically announced he consulted no one when he decided to attack Israel, nor did he measure Lebanon's need for security, prosperity, and the safety of its people. He said he needs no one's help but God's to fight the fight."

Journalist Youssef Ibrahim wrote a scathing editorial in the NY Sun... And he's not known as an Israeli appologist I can tell you.

It seems that even a number of Arab sources are placing the blame for the CURRENT breakout of violence squarely on Hamas and Hizbollah in particular.

Yay, rational thought. Wonderful. I'd like to point out that with the current Israeli government, at no time in recent history, has peace been more possible. Olmert is not Sharon. He was never a military behemoth. Labor is active in the current goverment. There's a unity government. Hamas and Hezbollah fucked that up royally.

Firstly - the New York sun is known for being a particularly Pro-Zionist mouthpiece, very well known for that.
A number of Middle eastern rulers are towing the line fed by Washington, yet the actual citizens of many nations are behind Hizbollah to a certain extent, probably out of a feeling of solidarity with the inhabitants of Gaza who Hizbollah at least state they are in solidarity with (obviously there is way more to it than that, the sabaa (spelling?) farms, the Lebanese detainees & of course a likely powerplay by Hizbollah itself).
Within Lebanon itself the majority leader in the lebanese parliament has stated that "The Lebanese people must remain united. We must not allow Israel to divide us. The enemy is Israel."
So the tactic of punishing the whole of the lebanese population in order to turn them against hezbollah appears to beclearly failing, with Lebanese dancing in the streets when an Israeli warship which had been shelling Lebanon was struck by a hezbollah drone (the first time that particular type of weapon had been used).
So the likely outcome (as is usual & fairly demonstrable with this kind of 'shock & Awe' strategy) is the reverse of what is claimed to be the goal, i.e. the lebanese population will likely become more radicalised with hezbollah (although criticised by various middle eastern governments) gaining more support from the actual civilian population within Lebanon & throughout the wider middle east.
The example I gave earlier was of moqtada elsadr now contemplating using his Badr brigades against the U.S. in Iraq in a show of unity with the people of Gaza & Lebanon.
I can't say for sure what all this means - but there is certainly a divide between the public pronouncements of middle eastern governments, rulers & spokespeople & the attitudes of ordinary citizens & many organisations.
One also has to consider that often the public pronouncements of middle eastern rulers can be markedly different than their private opinions.
This is before we take into consideration the Shia Sunni divide & the internal policies of regional actors with regard to Islaimisists of various persuasions within their own regions of control.
Very messy & not simple.
Regarding the current administration in israel being 'centrist' & accesible to peace negotiations I believe that is further from the truth than ever.
They are continuing a plan whose grounds were laid years ago & which Olmert is already familiar with, besides with his limited military experience he has now virtually given control over to the military, in particular the airforce who appear to have been aiting for a chance like this for a long time.
Just my opinion after reading a hell of a lot recently.

kennerb wrote:That hygenic line is crap. Sorry. Maybe it was true for people who lived in tents and travelled all the time a coupla thousand years ago.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/5165118.stm

kennerb wrote:

stinky wrote:

kennerb wrote:But yet the cutting of the forskin off a guy is just Okey Dokey in Western society.

Yeah, actually. That's because you (a male) don't lose orgasmic sensation, as well as it being more hygenic.

That hygenic line is crap. Sorry. Maybe it was true for people who lived in tents and travelled all the time a coupla thousand years ago.

Do you really think humans would have evolved and survived for the amount of time that we have with a forskin that caused hygene issues.

I would also like to know who was the judge of determining that no sensation is lost in the mutilation of the most sensitive part of a man's body.

Mutilation is mutilation no matter what culture it is. Even if one thinks they are more "cultured"

there is no sensitivity loss with circumcised men, in fact id say we get a heightened experience... and the hygine thing still exists, trials have suggested that circumcised men are less prone to STD's.

Better orgasms, less burning, beat that.

stinky wrote:

kennerb wrote:That hygenic line is crap. Sorry. Maybe it was true for people who lived in tents and travelled all the time a coupla thousand years ago.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/5165118.stm

From the same article

"However, people who are circumcised can still be infected with HIV and any awareness campaign would have to be extremely careful not to suggest that it protects against HIV or is an alternative to using condoms."

So they are contradicting their own statements.

It's logical that any body part that can hold other's bodily secretions is going to be an area where disease is able to be cultured. That is why women and gay men who have anal intercourse have a much higher HIV infection rate. So the recommendation that someone be mutilated in order to reduce the risk as opposed to using a condom is preposterous at the very least.

Would you recommend people have their toes removed so as to prevent them stubbing them?

kennerb wrote: So they are contradicting their own statements.

if that's what you want to see, so be it. i was only pointing to one factor, std's, where hygiene is of concern. Not everybody lives in oregan, bathes daily, and has straight intercourse.

kennerb wrote:Would you recommend people have their toes removed so as to prevent them stubbing them?

No, of course not. That's proposterous. But, that's not the same thing.

stinky wrote:Of course not, don't be so pompous. I would never rationalize the killing of innocent people. There are however, two sides to every story, and the fact remains that you're not able to see both sides of the argument at any length. There is propanganda all around. You don't know what's it's like to get constantly attacked, do you? Put yourself in that place. I don't think you can postulate thus. In fact, i don't think you're able to... you haven't shown any ability to do that. I've talked about both sides, and i can sit here and rattle off about how they BOTH feel.

You just want to sit there on your high horse, in your comfortable house, spouting nothing but Israel this and Israel that. I'll sit here and post about all your conspiracy theories, and discuss them. In fact, i agree with alot of what you said, but i don't agree that anyone would want to do this because they get pleasure out of it, which is what you're inferring. You're denigrating a whole population with your innuendo, and perpetuating these notions that you've not had a hand in experiencing in the slightest, and it's rather arrogant. Even Sweetjesus, the original poster of this thread, is biased.

I'm not biased in the least bit. I what is going on. But, the fact remains that in Israel, there's a saying, "Arabs only understand the sword." They can only be met with strength, or they will take advantage you. This is the mentality of Israelis, and many people in Europe think that Israel retalition for attacks is disproportionate. Well, if it was any less, things would be alot worse. In arab society, people do take advantage of weakness. That's the nature of their society. You, computo, can't fathom what living like that is like. So, you're armchair referee play is weak. Instead of adding to the hostilities, add something positive.

And you're saying IM the one on a high horse?

computo wrote:And you're saying IM the one on a high horse?

did you have something intelligent to say, or was that it?

computo wrote:

stinky wrote: You're denigrating a whole population with your innuendo, and perpetuating these notions that you've not had a hand in experiencing in the slightest, and it's rather arrogant.

I'm not biased in the least bit. I what is going on. But, the fact remains that in Israel, there's a saying, "Arabs only understand the sword." They can only be met with strength, or they will take advantage you. This is the mentality of Israelis, and many people in Europe think that Israel retalition for attacks is disproportionate. Well, if it was any less, things would be alot worse. In arab society, people do take advantage of weakness. That's the nature of their society. You, computo, can't fathom what living like that is like. So, you're armchair referee play is weak. Instead of adding to the hostilities, add something positive.

And you're saying IM the one on a high horse?

Interesting that Stinky accuses computo here of 'denigrating' the Israelis, then later makes a very negative sweeping generalisation about all arabs - not just particular sections or subsections of arabs - but of all arabs as a race.
Isn't that kind of attitude what one would noramaly class as racism & bigotry - belitling & negatively stereotyping a whole host of cultures & a whole race?
Certainly for someone to make such a generalisation about Jews/Israelis it would invite the accusation (very damaging as it happens) of anti-semitism?
But then, they're only arabs, so I guess that makes it OK?
It reminds me of the discredited theories of Bernard Lewis & others on 'Muslim Rage' - that same reductionist simplistic discourse that fuels the blundering of the U.S. in the middle east to this day & helped give rise to the 'fundamentalist' tide.
It is this racism that subtly permeates a great deal of Israeli discourse, even against arabic jews - who a professor of mine at Uni. had a lot of contact with whilst researching a book he did on the problems faced within Israel by Jews of arabic lineage, considered & treated as second class citizens - look the book up, if you can find it - it was published by the Peace Studies departments own press & is widely regarded as an authorative work on the subject.
Interesting the deep ties that there were between Israel & Apartheid era south africa no? The land of the Bantustan.
This is the attitude that fuels statements such as 'Arab lives..... not being worth one Jews toenail', or however exactly that recent & infamous quote went.
So arabs only respect the use of overwhelmig force - what a self-serving argument.
So like the attitude of the British Empire concerning Natives back when it shouldered the 'white mans burden' & Churchill was adamant on 'reserving the right to gas & bomb kurds' (possible slight misquote there).
Or the Australian attitude to Aborigines, even the Early Americans to the Native Indian 'savages'.
One minute you claim that there is a centrist Israeli administration ready for peace & in the next breath you display the most deep held bigoted attitude towards arabs - that they only 'respect' force, hate weakness & it is that, what you claim is their own innate racial/cultural failings that force Israels actions.
Apartheid is alive & well & that subtle, likely unconcious non-reflexive racism & bigotry is at the dark heart of it.
The Dark side of Orientalist discourse, poisonous cultural baggage that the late Edward Said was so fluent & articulate in exposing.

Regarding Middle Eastern Regimes spokespeople condemning Hizbollah (mostly in the face of support on 'the street') one has to consider the shia sunni divide generally, the Arab vs. Persian divide (i.e. the question of Iran) & the particular circumstances & priorities of individual regimes.
Most of the regimes that can be considered 'pro-western' are understandably (from a strategic point of view) concerned about a possible Shia 'Arc' of influence in the middle east, & also about the influence Persian Iran could then wield, as it has given support to so many shia groups.
Saudi Arabia is very worried about this, the corrup house of al-saud has been subjugating it's sizeable shia minority for a long time.
Jordan of course is interested in the apparent revival of the earlier 80's paradigm (as championed by George Schultz & now by Meyrav Wurmser who recently wrote in teh New York sun reagarding this paradigm, which has been mooted seriously in rightist zionist discourse.
This plan calls for the incorporation of the West Bank into Jordan.
Or what's left of it - as the Israeli administration is working hard settling the Jordan Valey, along with around palestinian east jerusalem - sorry no exact figures to hand on the massive scale of 'illegal' settlement, which has recently been exposed as having some serious clandestine backing within Israeli government agencies.
Teh Jordanian administration is ready for this:

King Abdullah has signaled a willingness to reengage in West Bank affairs. In the most significant Jordanian intervention in the West Bank since July 1988, Abdullah began in March 2005 to enlist new recruits for the Jordan-based and influenced Badr security forces (also known as the Palestinian Liberation Army) for possible deployment to parts of the West Bank...

"Marouf al-Bakhit, at the time Jordan's ambassador to Israel and, subsequently, the kingdom's prime minister, elaborated that the Jordanian government hoped to play a more active role in the West Bank...

"The Jordanian leadership appears increasingly willing to play a direct role..."

diverdee wrote:Interesting that Stinky accuses computo here of 'denigrating' the Israelis, then later makes a very negative sweeping generalisation about all arabs - not just particular sections or subsections of arabs

No, your entirely mistaken. If you read carefully, i specifically refer to the mentality of the Israeli society as a whole, and how they view arabs in general. I never once purported that to by own personal view. I then went on to say that without being part of that society, you have no ability to understand that rationality. I do understand it, because i have seen it and felt it. But, i don't for an instant think that's how arabs are.

diverdee wrote:Interesting that Stinky accuses computo here of 'denigrating' the Israelis, then later makes a very negative sweeping generalisation about all arabs - not just particular sections or subsections of arabs - but of all arabs as a race.

Interesting only so far as to make himself look like a twat.

As someone who's read a few books and talked to a few people, all I can say is that anyone who says 'women are circumcised in the Middle East' deserves no further attention.

noisetonepause wrote:nteresting only so far as to make himself look like a twat.

As someone who's read a few books and talked to a few people, all I can say is that anyone who says 'women are circumcised in the Middle East' deserves no further attention.

That's right, go read a few more books. It may help you. In fact, did you read any of the links I sent you in the last post on that subject? Man, you're truly ignorant if you think it doesn't happen.

stinky wrote:

diverdee wrote:Interesting that Stinky accuses computo here of 'denigrating' the Israelis, then later makes a very negative sweeping generalisation about all arabs - not just particular sections or subsections of arabs

No, your entirely mistaken. If you read carefully, i specifically refer to the mentality of the Israeli society as a whole, and how they view arabs in general. I never once purported that to by own personal view. I then went on to say that without being part of that society, you have no ability to understand that rationality. I do understand it, because i have seen it and felt it. But, i don't for an instant think that's how arabs are.

If that's the case I apologise to you personally on that score.
But deconstructing the paragraphs in question it would appear that you are personally agreeing with that 'Israeli mentality' - as you clearly & distinctly state that

If it (the 'disproportionate response) was any less, things would be alot worse. In arab society, people do take advantage of weakness. That's the nature of their society.

That seems to indicate that you agree with the negative viewpoint & are arguing that a the disproportionate response is justified - as the fundamental, existential nature of arabs leves them unable to respond to peaceful overtures (which this viewpoint claims tehy would perceive as weakness) so Israel has to respond overwhelmingly & disproportionately - not because Israel wants to, but because it is the only language the arab is gentically or culturally predisposed to understand.
The way this sentence is constructed & is placed in the paragraph seems to point to your acquiescence with this point of view.
As I said - if i'm wrong about you personally I apologise & would reccomend that you be more careful with your responses, else false inferences are drawn & can only thank you for bringing up a valid & interesting point regarding Israeli negative stereotyping of the Arabic culture & race - as an obvious insider, with personal experience of this it makes the argument even stronger thatn coming from some outsider, leftist critic etc.
Nice one

noisetonepause wrote:As someone who's read a few books and talked to a few people, all I can say is that anyone who says 'women are circumcised in the Middle East' deserves no further attention.

I haven't read this whole thread, so i'm not aware of what statements you are referring to here, but Female circumcision is mainly an African cultural practice.
It is practiced by Islamic peoples, but is considered cultural baggage from earlier societies & norms.
It is a horrendous practice though.