I have seen it quite a bit on here, an intactavist tells of a mother who seems to have taken the "Healthy" route and when pressured for evidence taps up a few links to a lovely little site called CircInfo or the "International Circumcision Information
Reference Centre".
I doubt you have never heard of it and been to it before but if so then allow me to spoil your blissful ignorance: http://www.circinfo.com
The thing I loathe most about this site is that I first found it in the links section on the GuardianUnlimited webpage (at the bottom of a predominantly anti article, since this is a UK paper) under the description "No-nonsense British site, mostly pro." (emphasis added)
A quick glance was enough to deduce that only one of those three parts of the description was accurate. This website uses an air of scientific and medical gravitas to flood the read with faux-facts, a deluge so mighty that logic, reason and love of evidence are battered into submission and a few shards of deceit are bound to pierce the mind.
Yesterday I had something of a notion, it occured to me that we might have been taking a rather inneffecient approach. The site is perfect for coaxing those who are leaning the wrong way off the fence due solely to the trust it can develop through its seemingly reasonable tone and its apparent dependance upon facts.
So let us not try and have nearly neutral parents be forced to trace to the source (the nefarious Gilgal Society) and in the process make ourselves seem like absurd fantasists (because this whole thing does indeed seem like an absurd fantasy) since that is precisely the approach they desire and they are in something of an elevated position: their depiction of us as shrill, rabid fanatics contrasted to their dry, scientifically tones.
Instead let us hit them where is hurts, what they claim to base their entire site around, fact.
My vision was an entire alternative webpage, which intactavists could simply post up a link to in response, possibly called something like circmisinfo.org with a full annotation of every statement made showing it to be a falsehood.
As I considered this though the practicalities of money, time and effort and such struck me so let us start off here. Just post up a passage or page from their site with your factual deconstructive commentary and permission for it to be used elsewhere at a later date to assist our cause.
It will be a challenge to cover all or even most of the site but I reckon we are up to it, if I am wrong then I apologise for wasting your time.
Reference Centre".
I doubt you have never heard of it and been to it before but if so then allow me to spoil your blissful ignorance: http://www.circinfo.com
The thing I loathe most about this site is that I first found it in the links section on the GuardianUnlimited webpage (at the bottom of a predominantly anti article, since this is a UK paper) under the description "No-nonsense British site, mostly pro." (emphasis added)
A quick glance was enough to deduce that only one of those three parts of the description was accurate. This website uses an air of scientific and medical gravitas to flood the read with faux-facts, a deluge so mighty that logic, reason and love of evidence are battered into submission and a few shards of deceit are bound to pierce the mind.
Yesterday I had something of a notion, it occured to me that we might have been taking a rather inneffecient approach. The site is perfect for coaxing those who are leaning the wrong way off the fence due solely to the trust it can develop through its seemingly reasonable tone and its apparent dependance upon facts.
So let us not try and have nearly neutral parents be forced to trace to the source (the nefarious Gilgal Society) and in the process make ourselves seem like absurd fantasists (because this whole thing does indeed seem like an absurd fantasy) since that is precisely the approach they desire and they are in something of an elevated position: their depiction of us as shrill, rabid fanatics contrasted to their dry, scientifically tones.
Instead let us hit them where is hurts, what they claim to base their entire site around, fact.
My vision was an entire alternative webpage, which intactavists could simply post up a link to in response, possibly called something like circmisinfo.org with a full annotation of every statement made showing it to be a falsehood.
As I considered this though the practicalities of money, time and effort and such struck me so let us start off here. Just post up a passage or page from their site with your factual deconstructive commentary and permission for it to be used elsewhere at a later date to assist our cause.
It will be a challenge to cover all or even most of the site but I reckon we are up to it, if I am wrong then I apologise for wasting your time.
:
